IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of joint family property does not arise solely from the existence of a joint family; the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish that property was acquired from joint family funds.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. Present petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.01.1981 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the impugned revisional order dated 09.07.1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the Basic year Khatauni, the land of Khata No. 875 having several gatas were recorded in the name of Chillar, the predecessors in interest of the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Sheo Nandan alias Nannan had three sons namely, Chillar, Manju and Hansraj. Chillar had one son namely Pheru. Pheru had six sons namely Chitbahal, Ram Bahal, Munnu, Hannu, Dhannu and Nanhu whereas Chit Bahal had one son namely Raj Deo. All these persons are petitioners in the present petition. Manju had one son namely Mathura and Mathura had one son namely Ram Daur, who is the respondent in the present petition. Hans Raj had one son namely Baldeo while Baldeo had three sons namely Ram Baran, Ram Karan and Ram Dular while Baldeo and Ram Karan are the respondents in the present petition.

5. It is further submitted that at the time of consolidation proceedings started in the village, the objections under Section 9 A(2) were preferred by the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 and after their demise, their successors/legal heirs have been substituted in the present petition (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as, the respondents) claiming their rights on two counts, firstly, on the basis of property being Joint Hindu Family and secondly, on the basis of adverse possession over the land. The said objections of the respondents were rejected by the Consolidation Officer by its order dated 29.04.1980. Against the said order dated 29.04.1980, the respondents had preferred an appeal which was partly allowed by order dated 16.01.1981 holding that the co-tenancy being a Joint Hindu Family has not been proved but the adverse possession has been proved. Against the appellate order dated 16.01.1981, two revisions were preferred i.e. Revision Nos. 1382 and 1349 by the petitioners and respondents respectively under Section 48 of the Act, 1953.

6. It is further submitted that the revisions were decided by the common judgment dated 09.07.1981, which is impugned herein, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was rejected and the revision preferred by the respondents was allowed admitting the co-tenancy on the basis of revenue and irrigation receipts filed by the respondents by giving the findings that, which was not denied by the petitioners hence cotenancy has been proved in favour of the respondents and a finding has also been given that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has wrongly allowed the appeal on the basis of adverse possession whereas the matter was to be seen in the light of claim of the respondents as a co-tenancy/co-tenure holder of a Joint Hindu Family.

7. It is further submitted that the disputed property was a self acquired property of Chillar, the great grand father of the Raj Deo-the petitioner and the property was not purchased from the fund/ nucleus of Joint Hindu Family.

8. It is further submitted that respondents had failed to establish that the property in dispute was purchased from the fund/nucleus of Joint Hindu Family and as per the law settled, the onus is upon the person who is claiming that property was purchased from the fund/nucleus of Joint Hindu Family and to prove that land/property was purchased from fund/nucleus of Joint Hindu Family, the respondents at no point of time had ever succeeded to establish or led any evidence for the same. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Ja