2026:JHHC:818 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 63 of 2012 1. Barho Thakur, son of late Lalji Thakur 2. Basant Thakur, son of Barho Thakur 3. Manoj Thakur, son of Barho Thakur 4. Sanjay Thakur, son of Barho Thakur All residents of village Basaria, P.O., P.S.- Hunterganj now Bashisth Nagar, District-Chatra at present residents of Dibha, Panchawan, Mohalla Chatra, P.O., P.S. and District-Chatra. … … Defendants/Appellants/Appellants Versus Mahabir Thakur son of late Lalji Thakur resident of village Basaria, P.O., P.S.- Hunterganj now Bashisth Nagar, District- Chatra at present residents of Dibha, Panchawan, Mohalla Chatra, P.O., P.S. and District-Chatra. … … Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate : Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Trishna Sagar, Advocate --- 34/13.01.2026 1. This 2nd appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 10.05.2012 (decree signed on 24.05.2012) passed by 1st District Judge, Chatra in Title Appeal No. 28 of 2009 affirming the judgment dated 28.04.2009 (decree signed on 12.05.2009) passed by learned Subordinate Judge-I, Chatra in Title Suit No. 23 of 2003. 2. The title suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff by the learned trial court and the court directed the defendants to vacate the portion of the suit premises, which is under their occupation, within three months from the date of judgment. The judgment and decree passed in title suit was affirmed by the learned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the defendants are the appellants before this Court. 3. The suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest with respect to the suit property along with house standing thereon and the further prayer was also made for confirmation of possession over the suit property and in the alternative, if the plaintiff is found disposed 2026:JHHC:818 2 from the suit property, there was a prayer made for recovery of possession also. 4. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 23.07.2015 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the findings of the learned court below are vitiated due to not properly considering the oral and the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants in its correct perspective?” 5. The learned counsel for the respondent at the outset has submitted that the question of law as framed by this Court is not a substantial question of law inasmuch as there is no scope for re- appreciation of evidences placed on record at the 2nd appellate stage in absence of any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidences. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the substantial question of law does not refer to any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts, but the judgment are perverse and the materials of record have not been properly appreciated and therefore, the substantial question of law has been rightly framed. 8. While advancing the arguments on merits, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the property involves in this case was purchased from the joint family fund inasmuch as the consideration money was paid by the personal earning and stridhan of the mother of both the parties. Learned counsel has submitted that this aspect of the matter having not been considered. The substantial question of law framed by this Court be answered in favour of the appellants. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent while opposing the prayer has submitted that the defendants/appellants has failed to prove that the property was purchased from the personal earning/stridhan of the mother of both the parties and the property was standing in the name of the plaintiff who claimed that the property 2026:JHHC:818 3 was purchased from his own income. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is no nucleus in the family to purchase the property. She has also submitted that the mother was also examined as witness before the court, but it has been recorded by the learned court that she had not deposed that the property was purchased from the stridhan or from her income and this aspect of the matter has also been considered by the learned court to come to a finding that the property was not a joint family property and was a self-acquired property of the plaintiff. She has also submitted that every aspect of the matter and all the materials on record have been taken into consideration by the learned courts. 10. Learned counsel has also submitted that the defendants had relied upon Exhibit-A which is a deed of partition on 22.10.2002. She has submitted that the alleged signature of the plaintiff on the deed of partition was to be examined through handwriting expert and for that purpose the petition was also allowed at the instance of the defendants, but the defendants failed to comply to the direction of the court and did not deposit the cost of the handwriting expert and the alleged signature of the plaintiff in the partition deed i.e. Exhibit-A could not be examined by expert. Learned counsel submits that the conduct of the defendants has also been taken into consideration while deciding the case. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court and has referred paragraph 19 to submit that learned 1st appellate court has come to concurrent finding that the property was not the joint family property. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he was the absolute owner of the land and the building standing thereon and it was acquired by his personal and exclusive fund through registered sale deed dated 03.01.1979 and the plaintiff had been in exclusive possession of the suit property and got his name mutated and zamabandi was also in the name of the plaintiff. He had constructed 2026:JHHC:818 4 the house on the property and municipal taxes were being paid by the plaintiff alone. 13. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff belongs to very poor family having limited source of income and therefore, he left his native village in the year 1963 and began to reside at Chatra by doing barber’s job. The plaintiff earned enough to the profession. It was stated that the father of the parties died in the year 1994 in the native village and mother was still alive. 14. The defendant No.1 is the brother of the plaintiff who also decided to live at Chatra and sought for plaintiff’s permission to reside temporarily in the plaintiff’s house at Chatra to which the plaintiff permitted and allowed him to stay in one room with a clear understanding that as soon as the defendant would get alternative residential accommodation, he shall vacate the plaintiff’s house. 15. The defendant established his own hair cutting saloon, but the defendant did not vacate the portion of the premises and finally refused to vacate on 25.11.2002. 16. A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was also initiated between the parties and the rule was made absolute against the defendant. It was also stated in the plaint itself that no panchayati was convened and the paper of panchayati was forged and fabricated and it was denied by the plaintiff that the plaintiff ever made any signature on the same. It was contended by the plaintiff that the defendant was on permissive possession in front portion of the house as a licencee and he was liable to be vacated. 17. The defendants jointly contested the suit by filing written statement asserting that the title suit itself was not maintainable and they also asserted that amicable final partition took place between the parties in the year 1992 and the period of 12 years had already expired so the suit itself was barred by limitation. 18. It was contended that the defendants owned and possessed 40% of the suit land and the plaintiff owned and possessed 60% of the same 2026:JHHC:818 5 and the defendant No.1 was allotted front portion of the land adjoining to the pucca road. 19. It was the case of the defendants that the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had originally settled in Village-Bashariya where he acquired some land and since there was no facility of education, the parents of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 decided to purchase some land at Chatra and construct a house to get their children admitted in school and accordingly 4 decimal of land was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and a small kuccha house was constructed. 20. It was contended that the major portion of the consideration money with respect to the suit property and the cost of construction was paid by the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 out of her personal earning and stridhan property. It was also contended that the defendant No.1 had also contributed considerable amount in the construction of the house and it was asserted that the lands belonged to the joint family under their father as karta of the family and thereafter, under the mother. It was asserted by the defendant that on account of some differences, a panchayati was held in village in which it was reduced in writing and both the brothers had accepted the same and signed the award of the panches. The defendants denied the assertion of the plaintiff in the plaint. 21. Altogether eight issues were framed by the learned trial court, which are as follows:- i. Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties? ii. Whether the sale deed No. 46 dated 03.01.1979 is legal and valid? iii. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? iv. Has the plaintiff cause of action for the suit? v. Is the suit barred by non-joinder or mis-joinder of the parties? vi. Is the suit barred by law of limitation, adverse possession, waiver, acquiescence and provisions of Specific Relief Act? vii. Is the suit property, exclusive property of the plaintiff or the same is joint property of the parties? viii. Is the plaintiff entitled to any relief or reliefs? 2026:JHHC:818 6 22. Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, the most important issue is issue No.(vii). 23. Both the parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence. 24. The issue No. (i) and (vii) were decided by the learned trial court vide paragraph 11. The learned trial court observed that there is no presumption that a family because it is joint also possesses joint family property and a particular member of the joint family may have a separate property. It was also observed by the learned court that in order to render a property to be a joint family property, it must be proved that the family has some property, with the income of which, the disputed property could have been acquired. Meaning thereby the nucleus to procure the property is required to be proved. The person who asserts that the property is a joint family property, he has to prove the nucleus from which such property could be acquired and only then such property can be presumed to be joint family property. 25. Applying the said principle, the learned trial court considering the materials and observed that no nucleus of joint family fund has been shown by the defendants and the defendants also failed to prove that the property was purchased from the personal earning of the mother or her stridhan. The learned trial court also observed that D.W.4 was the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, who had stated in her examination in chief that her land was purchased by her husband on behalf of joint family fund, but she had not stated that she made any contribution from her earning or through her stridhan for making payment of the consideration amount of the disputed land or in the construction of the house, constructed on the disputed land. 26. The learned trial court further considered all the oral an documentary evidence available on record and also Exhibit-A, the alleged deed of partition, with respect to which the learned court also observed that the plaintiff had disputed his signature on the alleged deed of partition and a petition was also filed by the defendants to get the handwriting and finger print examine through expert, which was allowed on 26.08.2008, but the defendants failed to comply the 2026:JHHC:818 7 direction of the court and did not deposit the cost of the expert and as such the alleged signature of the plaintiff available in the partition deed i.e. Exhibit-A, could not be examined by the expert. The learned trial court observed that there is latches on the part of the defendants and therefore, adverse inference was also drawn against the defendants. 27. The learned trial court ultimately recorded that from careful scrutiny and minute observation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the property was the self- acquired property of the plaintiff and defendants had not succeeded to prove that the same has been acquired through joint family fund and ultimately held that the plaintiff had valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. 28. The suit was decreed and the defendants were directed to vacate the portion of the suit premises which was under their occupation within three months from the date of the judgment. 29. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the materials on record by framing the moot question involved in the case in paragraph 11 of its judgment i.e. whether the suit property is self-acquired property of respondent/plaintiff or it is the joint family property and whether the consideration money was paid by a joint family fund or it was paid exclusively by respondent/plaintiff from his personal and independent income? 30. Learned 1st appellate court has also considered all the materials on record and considered principles of law governing the case in paragraph 16 which is as follows: - “16. It is also well settled law that when all these facts are proved by the party, which alleges that property, acquired, was joint family property, then the onus shifts upon the person, in whose name the property stands purchased, to prove and establish that it was his self-acquired property and that was acquired from his individual earning independent from the earning of joint family. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent/plaintiff has relied on an authority reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3800 wherein their Lordship’s held that where the question is as to a 2026:JHHC:818 8 particular property is self-acquired property or joint family property, the burden is on the person who alleges that it was a joint family property to prove and establish that it was purchased from joint family fund. If the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be a presumption of property of being joint family property and onus would shift on the person who alleged it to be self acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own fund and not from joint family fund which was available. Relying on this authority it is contended on behalf of respondent/plaintiff that appellants/defendants have not been able to prove and establish that there was sufficient fund in the joint family at the time of acquisition of property and it was blended to joint family for use and utilization under this circumstance, there is no burden on the respondent/plaintiff to prove and establish that the suit property was purchased by him from his own income and not from joint family fund. Thus, the appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.” 31. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately applying the principles of law and recorded finding in paragraph 17 which is as follows: - “17. From perusal of evidence of witnesses adduced on behalf of appellants/defendants, it becomes clear that respondent/plaintiff was working as a barber and he was earning his income from that profession. D.W. 14 has stated in para 15 of her evidence that respondent/plaintiff was working as a barber at village since the time he was aged about 15 to 16 years. D.W.1 has also stated that Mahabir Thakur is working as a barber since 14 years. D.W.8 has also stated that Mahabir Thakur runs his saloon at village. D.W.7 has also stated in para 16 that Mahabir Thakur is working as a barber since 1963. D.W.6 has also stated in para 10 that Mahabir Thakur has opened a saloon at Chatra in the year 1962-63. Thus, from the statement of defendant’s witnesses, it is clear that respondent/plaintiff Mahabir Thakur was earning money by the profession of barber since 1962-63 and he had income to meet the consideration money involved in the purchase of suit property. From perusal of Exhibit-4 it clearly transpires that consideration money was paid by respondent/plaintiff Mahabir Thakur in whose name the property stands purchased and by none-else. In view of the law discussed in forgoing paragraphs, the respondent/plaintiff was not under 2026:JHHC:818 9 obligation to prove and establish that he purchased the suit property from his own income and not from the income of joint family as appellant/defendant could not prove and establish that there was sufficient nucleus in the joint family at the time of purchase of suit property. The admission of defendants witnesses regarding income of respondent/plaintiff is an additional thing in this case which establishes that suit property was the self-acquired property of respondent/plaintiff and it was not the joint family property.” 32. The Exhibit-A which was relied upon by the defendants was also rejected by citing reason in paragraph 18 of the judgment. The 1st appellate court also recorded that Exhibit-A was unregistered document and a partition deed under law is required to be registered and observed that unregistered partition deed is inadmissible under law. 33. The learned 1st appellate court while ultimately upholding the judgment in paragraph 19 has observed that the learned trial court has scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence and recorded that the property was a self-acquired property of the plaintiff and was not a joint family property and the learned trial court had rightly held so. 34. This Court finds that all the materials on record have been duly considered by both the courts by applying the correct principles of law. The defendants have miserable failed to prove their stand in the written statement that the property was purchased from the joint family fund or from the stridhan of the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. The joint family nucleus of availability of fund to buy any property has not been proved by the defendants and therefore the stand of the defendants that the property was joint family property has been rejected. Further the defendants have failed to prove their case as pleaded. 35. At this stage of dictation of the judgement, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment reported in (2003) 10 SCC 310 [D.S. Lakshmaiah and another vs. L. Balasubramanyam and another]. In this judgement it has been held in paragraph 18 as follows: - 2026:JHHC:818 10 “18. The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available.” 36. This Court is of the considered view that the judgements passed by the learned courts are in consonance with the aforesaid judgement reported in (2003) 10 SCC 310 (supra). This Court is of the considered view that the findings of the learned courts are not vitiated in any manner and the learned 1st appellate court has properly considered all the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties in the correct perspective and have also applied the correct principles of law while deciding the case. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellants in favour of the respondent. 37. Accordingly, this 2nd appeal is dismissed. 38. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 39. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through “Fax/e-mail”. 40. The records be sent back to the concerned court. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 13.01.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded On:-22nd May, 2026