Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is plaintiffs’ appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). Original Suit No. 7 of 1965 was instituted by plaintiffs i.e. Kunj Bihari Agarwal and 14 others, impleading defendants No. 1 and 2 (first set), defendants No. 3 to 9 (second set), defendants No. 10 to 21 (third set); and defendant No. 22 (fourth set).

2. This Court while hearing appeal under Order 41, Rule 11 C.P.C. by its order dated 15.9.1995, formulated following substantial question of law :

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there was a presumption of jointness and the burden was on the defendants that H.U.F. had disrupted and whether the lower appellate Court has mis-placed the burden?”

3. Sri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate has advanced submissions on behalf of plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter referred to as “appellants”) while Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, Advocate has advanced submissions on behalf of defendant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as “respondents”).

4. After hearing the parties I find three more substantial questions of law arising in this appeal which a