The burden of proof lies on the party asserting that property is joint family property, and mere existence of a joint family does not create a presumption of joint ownership.

JUDGMENT

Manish Kumar, J.

Heard Sri. Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Sudhir Kumar Misra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3/1, 3/2, 3/2/1, 3/2/2, 3/2/3 and 3/3 and Sri. Kaushal Kishor, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 12.02.1981 passed under Section 9(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 1953') by Consolidation Officer and the revisional order dated 30.12.1982 passed under Section 48 of the Act, 1982.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the predecessors of the present petitioners i.e. Petitioner No.1 and Late Bairagi father of Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 had filed objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1952 claiming co-tenancy right over Khata No.112 on the ground that the family of the petitioners and the opposite parties were Joint Hindu Family and Late Ramhit was the Karta of the family. Being the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family his name alone was recorded under the representative capacity in the revenue records.

4. It is further submitted that the consolidation officer had rejected the objection filed under Section 9A of the Act, 1953 by impugned order dated 12.02.1981 against which Late Pancham and his cousin brother late Bairagi the father of the Petitioner Nos. 2,3 and 4 had preferred an appeal and the said appeal was decided on the basis of the compromise/agreement entered between the petitioners and the respondents.

5. It is further submitted that against the appellate order Pandohi had preferred a revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953, who is the brother of Ram Lakhan and son of Late Nidhi.

6. It is further submitted that the Revisional Court committed manifest error of law in allowing the revision without giving due weightage to the admission made by respondent No.4 Ronghai and the compromise filed which was duly verified before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation and also failed to consider the admission made by the opposite parties in the reconciliation proceedings by filing a compromise.

7. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.1 had misread the evidence with respect to the rent receipts and Khasra entries. It is also submitted that in CH Form 2A issued under Rule 21 the name of the petitioner No.1 and Bairagi are recorded.

8. It is further submitted that the predecessors of the petitioners Late Pancham i.e. Petitioner No.1 and Late Bairagi father of Petitioner Nos.2,3 and 4, were in possession of the gatas and have been depositing the rent.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned revisional order and the same has been passed after appreciating and considering the evidence.

10. Sri. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3/1, 3/2, 3/2/1, 3/2/2, 3/2/3 and 3/3 has submitted that Pandohi the brother of Ram Lakhan and son of Nidhi had never signed any agreement nor participated in alleged conciliation proceedings between Late Pancham and Ram Lakhan. It is further submitted that the petitioners have failed to show any entry in the name of petitioners in the revenue records.

11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case the position which emerges out in the present case is that as far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the property belongs to a Joint Hindu Family is concerned, it is not tenable in the eyes of law as per law regarding the Joint Hindu Family Property it is now fairly well settled that in order to successfully claim the share regarding the Joint Hindu Family property, the burden is on the party to prove that there existed a joint family which had the requisite funds and nucleus out of which the property in question has been purchased. The onus is upon the