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 also need be considered :

ii. Whether the suit in question was barred by limitation?

iii. Whether Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as “LAC”) has failed to comply requirement of Order 41, Rule 31 C.P.C. and reversed findings of Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “TC”) without meeting or considering the reasons given by TC?

iv. Whether a “Firm” and “Hindu Undivided Family” (hereinafter referred to as “HUF”) are one and the same thing or different units?

5. In the original suit there had been impleaded, 15 plaintiffs and 22 defendants. Pedigree of the family is given in para 1 of the plaint which commenced from Jagan Ram, who had two sons, Bhagwan Dass and Laxmi Narain. Both the sons of Jagan Ram had four sons each. The sons of Bhagwan Dass were Sita Ram, Mathura Prasad, Madan Lal and Banshi Dhar, while that of Laxmi Narain were Jamuna Prasad, Govind Ram, Hari Prasad and Baijnath.

6. The plaintiff No. 4 comes from the branch of Sita Ram, being the only son but himself had six sons namely, Vishwanath Prasad (plaintiff 5), Mahavir Prasad (plaintiff 6), Krishna Murari (plaintiff 7), Anand Kumar (plaintiff 8), Kunj Bihari (plaintiff 1) and Shyam Bihari. Sita Ram’s brother Mathura Prasad had four sons namely Parmeshwar Prasad, Ratan Prasad (plaintiff 3), Satya Narain and Kailash Prasad. Parmeshwar Prasad had two sons namely Jai Prakash (plaintiff 11) and Vinod Kumar (plaintiff 12). Similarly Ratan Prasad also had two sons namely Jagdish (plaintiff 13) and Satish. The third son Satya Narain of Mathura Prasad had three sons namely Bal Mukund, Kashi Prasad and Rajeev Lochan.

7. The other plaintiffs are the descendent of Banshi Dhar, inasmuch as Banshi Dhar had two sons namely Ram Avtar and Sarvan Prasad (plaintiff 10). Ram Avtar had four sons namely Santosh Kumar (plaintiff 14), Arun Kumar (plaintiff 15), Bal Mukund and Geema. In the same manner, some of the defendants also belong to the same family tree descending from its route namely Jagan Ram.

8. Defendants No. 3 to 9 (second set) and defendants 10 to 21 (third set) are descendents of Bhagwan Dass and Laxmi Narain.

9. The plaint case set up is that plaintiffs alongwith defendants (third set) were members of Joint Hindu family and there was joint family business in the name of M/s Bhagwan Das Laxmi Narain. The property was acquired from joint family funds and therefore, sale-deeds, dated 26.12.1954, executed by Sri Laxmi Narain, his sons and the sons of Bhagwan Das; and that dated 30.12.1954, are fictitious and forged. Decree in suit under Section 59/61 of U.P. Tenancy Act, was obtained without jurisdiction as the property included house property also. It was also pleaded that property in dispute was an agricultural land, originally, acquired by Laxmi Narain and Bhagwan Das, under a Patta I