IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.236 of 2009 Mangal Singh, Son of Late Babu Parikha Singh, R/o Village- Jalwaiya ,P.S.- Arwal Now Koler, P.O.-Apnoor, District- Gaya, now Arwal----------------------------------Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant. Versus 1.Rameshwar Singh ,Son of Late Babu Parikha Singh. 2.Bangali Singh. 3.Lal Mohan Singh. 4.Umesh Singh. All Sons of Late Jagnarain Singh Deceased. 5. Samsar Singh aged about 15 years minor son of Late Lalan Singh under guardianship of Lalan Singh. 6.Sunil Singh aged about 15 years Son of Bengali Singh under the guardianship of his father Bengali Singh. All R/o Village- Jalwaiya ,P.S.- Arwal Now Koler, P.O.-Apnoor, District- Gaya, now Arwal. 7.Mani Devi, Wife of Ramadhar Singh. 8. Lalita Devi , Wife of Banarsi Singh. Both R/o of Village –Narhat, P.O. Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Masaurhi, District- Patna. 9.Ramawati Devi, Wife of Vijay Singh, R/o Village and P.O. Pagar, P.S.- Rafiganj, District Aurangabad. ------------------------------Defendants/Respondents/Respondents. ---------- 7. 08.09.2011 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal. The plaintiff, who has lost his appeal in the court below is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff has 2 filed the suit for partition of 1/3rd share in respect of the lands described in Schedule I and III of the plaint on the ground that these lands were joint family lands and the plaintiff has got unity of title and jointness of possession over the same with the defendants. The defendant No.1 and his wife who is defendant no.3 have filed joint written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit land are not the joint family property as claimed by the plaintiff rather the same are the self- acquired of these defendants. The sale deeds of the suit lands stand in the name of the defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 and there is also no dispute that the suit lands are situated in village Kheshrahi which is the Sasural of the defendant no.1. The plaintiff as well as defendant nos. 1 and 2 belong to village Jalwaiya. In view of the acquisition of the suit land exclusively in the name of defendant no.1, the plaintiff was required to establish sufficient nucleus in the joint family out of the income of which the suit lands could have been acquired in order to displace the presumption in favour of the defendant no.1. On consideration of evidence of the parties both the courts have come to the finding that there existed no nucleus in the joint family generating sufficient income for acquisition of the suit land. In a decision reported in AIR 1969 S.C. 106 the Apex court 3 in similar circumstances has laid down the necessity of existence of nucleus in order to rebut the presumption in favour of the member of the joint family in whose name the property stands. Both the courts below have rightly proceeded to examine the pleadings and evidence of the parties in this regard and have concluded that the plaintiff has failed to establish the required nucleus existing in the joint family. It is not the case of the appellant that the findings of fact as recorded by both the courts below are vitiated for non-consideration or misappreciation of evidence on record. In view of the concurrent finding of fact as recorded by both the courts below, there is no scope for interference in the second appeal. As such no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh (V.Nath,J.)