IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 1089 OF APPEAL NO. 1089 OF APPEAL NO. 1089 OF 2005 2005 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Dilip Bodake for the appellants. Mr. Umesh Mankapure for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 10th July, 2007 : 10th July, 2007 : 10th July, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The plaintiff/ appellant has filed the present suit against his mother and brother for declaration that the suit properties are the joint family properties and therefore, prayed for separate possession of the respective shares. After considering the material led on the record, the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vita, by the Judgment and order dated 24/09/1997 partly decreed the suit as described in the plaint ( 2 ) except the land block No.95 and 97 and as house property No. 423. The plaintiff, therefore, preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also, after considering the material on record, held that respondent no.1 proved that the land block No. 95 and 97 and house property No. 423 are his self acquired property. The party who asserts the jointness of the family property must prove the same. The plaintiff as observed by both the courts, failed to support his own case about the jointness of the property basically the block No. 95 and 97 and the house property No.423 in question. The presumption of jointness is always rebuttable. In the present case, after considering the material on record, including the evidence of mother as well as respondent no.1 Shankar, there is ( 3 ) definite material that the above properties are self acquired property of Shankar. After going through the evidence as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, I am of the view that there is no perversity in arriving at the conclusion that the suit property is the self acquired property of respondent no.1 Shankar. 2. The findings, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse merely because, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there was no documentary record to support the same. On the contrary, there is sufficient material, basically in regard to the acquisition of these properties by the Shankar as supported by his mother. There are no contra material placed on record by the plaintiff ( 4 ) who has asserted the jointness of the suit property. 3. Resultantly the second appeal is dismissed. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]