- (1.) Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, Advocate for petitioner and Sri M.N. Singh, Advocate, for respondent 14 (since deceased and substituted by legal heirs).
(2.) Sri Singh has confined his relief only in respect to Khata No. 9 and submitted that it was admittedly purchased only in the name of Shiv Nandan though he was member of joint family but there was no evidence to show that the aforesaid property was purchased as joint family property and this is fortified from the fact that in mutation, despite there were two brothers alive at that time, i.e., Shiv Nandan and Gopal, but in the revenue record, name of only Shiv Nandan was recorded. No evidence was adduced by respondents with respect to factum that Khata No. 9 was purchased by Shiv Nandan from the funds of joint family.
(3.) Learned counsel for respondents, however, submitted that since Shiv Nandan was admittedly member of a joint family, therefore, presumption lies that Khata No. 9 was purchased by Shiv Nandan from funds of joint family.;