IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.99 of 2003 RAMCHANDRA SINGH & ORS. Versus HARINANDAN SINGH & ORS. ----------- 09/ 22.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of affirmance. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 12 of 1988, which was filed by the appellants for partition of their moiety share in the suit properties, both movable and immovable, detailed in the plaint and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed in part on contest with cost only with respect to the properties, which were existing between the plaintiffs and defendants prior to 1970 giving both of them moiety share in the same. But with respect to subsequent acquisitions, the plaintiffs’ claim of partition was rejected as it was found that after 1970 there was a partition between the parties. The said judgment and decree dated 09.03.1995 was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Saharsa against which the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. No. 03 of 1995, which was dismissed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Saharsa vide judgment and decree dated 07.03.2003. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the plaintiffs-appellants have filed the instant second appeal. 5. From the averments and the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts 2 below, it appears that the learned courts below were fully aware of the cardinal principle of Hindu Law that a Hindu family would be presumed to be joint until the contrary is proved and hence if a person claims that there was an earlier partition in the family then the burden of proof would lie on his shoulder to prove previous partition. The learned courts below have also found that simply because a sale deed stands in the name of a female member of the family, it cannot be treated to be ISTRI DHAN unless and until it is proved that the purchaser has got her own fund, without the help of the joint family income, from which she has purchased the land but here in the instant case absolutely no material has been produced to show that the said female member had any fund or income of her own from which she could have purchased the said land. Hence, from the aforesaid facts and materials available on record, the learned courts below have rightly drawn inference that the properties acquired in the name of the wife of plaintiff Ram Chandra Singh was not ISTRI DHAN of Ritesh Devi, rather it was acquired by her husband, namely Ram Chandra Singh. 6. After considering the evidence in detail, the learned court of appeal below affirmed the findings of the learned trial court regarding partition and specifically came to the conclusion that the properties were joint till the year 1970 and there was a partition in the family in the year 1971, which was supported by a series of evidence, including Mutation Case No. 74 of 1977-1978, the existence of which was not denied, rather from the information slip 3 it was found that the record of the case was not available in the concerned office. So the very factum of steps being taken for mutation of the respective share of the co-sharers with respect to the properties cannot be ignored on that ground, specially when there was a series of evidence, both oral and documentary, which proved partition. 7. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below are covered by concurrent findings of facts in which no illegality is found, nor any substantial question of law is found 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. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)