1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2008 Prakash Yashwant Mayekar & ors........Appellants versus Madhukar Jayadeo Mayekar & ors........ Respondents. Mr. A.G. Damle adv. for the Appellants. CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 10th DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Damle learned counsel for the appellant. The appellants are original defendant nos. 4 to 9 and respondent nos. 1 to 10 are the original plaintiffs or their descendants. The suit was filed for possession of the landed property survey no.166, Hissa no.1 siautated at Zadgaon, admeasuring about one hector and 45 ares, It was the case of the respondent/plaintiffs that suit property was purchased by Jayadeo and Keshav in the year 1940 for consideration of an amount of Rs.2800/-. It was the further case of the respondent/plaintiffs that this property was purchased by Jayadeo and Keshav independently and joint family has no concern whatsoever. The appellant/defendants contested the above claim on the ground that the said suit property is joint 2 family property, in as much as Jayadeo and Keshav have purchased this property with the funds earned out of the joint family property. 2. In view of the above it was for the appellant/defendants to show that there exists joint family property yielding some income and out of the income of this joint family property, the said suit property was purchased. Once the burden to prove sufficient nucleus is discharged by the appellant/defendants then burden will be shifted to the respondent/plaintiffs to show that the said suit property was their separate property. 3. Both the lower courts below concurrently held that the appellant/defendants failed to prove that existence of any joint family property in the year 1940 capable of yielding income to enable the joint family to purchase the suit property. Thus the appellant/defendants failed to prove the factum of nucleus. So far as the respondent/plaintiff's case about suit property being separate and independent property is concerned, the trial court relied upon the recitles of the sale deed and held that the suit property is separate property of the respondent/plaintiffs. There is no presumption that the joint family holds any joint family property. The co-parcener is entitled to purchase property separately and independently in his own name. In that view of the matter, I do not see any error in the finding recorded by the lower courts below. No question of law much less substantial 3 question of law is involved. Second Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (R. V. More, J.)