IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.60 of 2007 Vijay Kumar S/o Ramashankar Prasad Resident of Village Raghunathpur P.S. Brahampur Dist. Buxar Defendant- Appellant- Appellant Versus 1. Krishna Kumar s/o Ramashankar Prasad Resident of Village Raghunathpur P.S. Brahampur Dist. Buxar Plaintiff – Respondent-Respondent 2. Ramashankar Prasad s/o late Nagina Ram 3. Shiv Kumar Prasad 4. Bhola Prasad 5. Mohan Prasad 6. Sohan Prasad 7. Ajay Kumar All sons of Ramashankar Prasad Resident of Village Raghunathpur P.S. Brahampur Dist. Buxar Defendants – Respondents-Respondents ----------------------- For the appellant: Mr Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate ------------------- 07/ 03.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent no.1. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendant- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.95 of 1995 which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent no.1 for demarcation of Schedule I- A out of Schedule I land and for partition of his 1/7th share in Schedule II land and other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest by the learned Subordinate Judge I, Buxar vide his judgment and decree dated 31.07.2003. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the defendant- appellant filed Title Appeal no.36 of 2003 which was dismissed on contest by the learned District Judge, Buxar, vide his judgment and decree dated 24.01.2007. Against the aforesaid judgments and - 2 - decree of the learned courts below, the instant second appeal has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenges the judgments and decree of the learned courts below but from the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that the main point for consideration was whether the suit property was acquired in the name of Krishna Kumar (Plaintiff) out of joint family fund or from separate fund of Krishna Kumar. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned courts below in detail after appraisal of the respective pleadings and evidence of the parties where after it was found that the sale deed showed that the suit land was acquired by the plaintiff and the same was supported by the father of both the parties who executed Bajidawa in favour of the plaintiff and further deposed in court against his own interest. It was also found that the plaintiff had been able to prove by valid evidence that the suit land was acquired in the name of Krishna Kumar from his separate fund which he got from his maternal grand mother and not from joint family fund, where after the plaintiff got construction made thereon out of his own fund which he got from his in-laws. In the said circumstances, the materials on record clearly proved that the suit properties were not acquired and constructed from joint family fund. 6. Law is well settled in this regard as Article 220 of the Hindu Law (20th Edition) specifically provides that a Hindu, even if he be joint, may possess separate property. Such property belongs exclusively to him. No other member of coparcenery, not even his male issue acquires any interest in it by birth. He may sell it or he may make a gift of it or bequeath it by will to any person he likes. It is not liable to partition and on his death - 3 - intestate it passes by succession to his heirs and not by survivorship to the surviving coparceners. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)