1 S.A.No.999/06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.999 OF 2006. Namdeo S/o Raoji Jadhav ... Appellant. Versus Chindhu S/o Raoji Jadhav and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.D.Bhalerao, advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.G.Ambetkar, advocate holding for Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.03.2011. PER COURT 1. This is defendants' Second Appeal. The present Respondent No.1 had filed suit for partition and separate possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff 2 S.A.No.999/06 preferred an appeal. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal granting share in suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. It also held that t6he father Raoji had executed Will- deed in favour of the present appellant and the share of Raoji was granted to the present appellant. The appellant being aggrieved by that decree passed by the appellate Court has assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Bhalerao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the lower appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the finding of the trial Court. The trial Court had relied on the statement of Soma i.e. the eldest brother in coming to the conclusion that Raoji was doing labour work and from the income of the said labour work had purchased the property mentioned in para 1-A. Such a finding could not have been reversed by the lower appellate Court. According to the learned counsel, though there is a presumption of a joint family, there is no presumption that the property in the name of a member of a joint family is a joint family 3 S.A.No.999/06 property and for the said purpose relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in "K.V.Narayanaswami Iyer Vs. K.V.Ramakrishna Iyer and others" reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 289. 3. Per contra, Mr.Ambetkar, learned counsel holding for Mr.S.T.Shelke, advocate for the Respondent No.1 submits that except bald statement of Soma, there is no evidence to corroborate the fact. The nucleus existed and as such the property purchased was rightly held to be purchased from the income of the ancestral property. No details are given about the alleged labour work. The learned counsel contends that the District Court has properly appreciated the facts. 4. The proposition that there is a presumption that the family is a joint family but there is no presumption that the property standing in the name of an individual member of a joint family is a joint family property need not be dilated. At the same time if a party is in a position to show the existence of a nucleus then 4 S.A.No.999/06 in such circumstances, the presumption would be rebutted. In the present case, admittedly, the property stated in para 1-B is an ancestral property which was fetching income. The existence of nucleus was present. Except the statement of Soma that too a vague statement not corroborated by any details could not have been relied upon. The Court below has properly considered this aspect. The view taken by the Court below is a possible and plausible view. The Second Appeal can not be entertained only on the ground that some other view is also possible. 5. In that light of the matter, Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa999.06 5 S.A.No.999/06