1 (SA 219 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2010 Changdeo Tukaram Katkar ...Appellant (Org. Plaintiff) Vs. Baban Vitthal Katkar & Ors. ...Respondents (Org. Defendants) ----- Mr. D.D. Rananaware for Appellant ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 28TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. The Appellant is the Original Plaintiff, who had filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. In the said suit, the Defendants filed their written statement and contended that certain properties mentioned in the plaint, were in fact, self acquired properties of the Defendants. The Trial Court partly allowed the suit. The Trial Court, however, held that the properties which were standing in the name of the Defendants, were their self acquired 2 (SA 219 of 2010) properties since the Plaintiffs had not established that there was sufficient nucleus of the joint family properties which was sufficient for the purpose of purchasing these properties, which were acquired by the Defendants. One of the Defendants viz. Defendant No.3 appears to have supported the case of the Plaintiff. In spite of that, the Trial Court partly allowed the said suit. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding of the fact recorded by the Lower Courts, the Appellant-Original Plaintiff herein has filed the Second Appeal. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Original Plaintiff that both the Lower Courts below had erred in recording the said finding though 3 (SA 219 of 2010) the Defendants did not step into the witness box. He submitted that there was sufficient nucleus in the joint family properties had been established by the Plaintiff. He submitted that though the burden had shifted on the Defendants to establish that the said properties were self acquired properties, both the Lower Courts accepted the contention of the Defendants. 4. In my view, submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant cannot be accepted. 5. It is a well settled position in law that initial burden of proving that the property is a joint family property, is on the Plaintiff and he has to establish that the said joint family property had sufficient nucleus out of which the property standing in the name of the individual co- parceners could be purchased in their name and only after this initial burden is discharged, the burden shifts on the Defendant, which he has to prove that the property is self acquired. In the present case, the 4 (SA 219 of 2010) Defendants produced on record the sale deeds in respect of the properties which were standing in their name and these documents were admitted by both the parties and became part of the record. The Appellant- Plaintiff, however, did not lead any evidence or could not prove that there was sufficient nucleus out of which these properties could be purchased. Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact on this aspect after discussing the entire evidence on record. T is, therefore, not possible to interfere with the said concurrent finding of fact. In my view, therefore, no substantial question of law is raised in this Second Appeal. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)