If the property is said to belong to a person who is a member of a joint family, such property is presumed to be joint property. This presumption, however, does not arise, unless there is a nucleus of ancestral property, or other property, sufficient to contribute substantially towards the acquisition. If the property stands in the name of a noncoparcener, e.g. female member or a son-in- law of a member, the presumption does not arise.
The presumption that a Hindu family continues to be joint is mainly available when the question arises whether a specific property which was admittedly joint at one time has continued to be joint or it has ceased to be joint by virtue of a separation.
If a joint family possessed property which was admittedly joint the presumption would be that the property continues to be joint, and the burden would be upon the member who claims it as his separate property to prove that there was a petition and that he got it on such partition. Where it is proved on admitted that partition has already taken place, the burden lies upon him who claims that a portion of the Hindu family property is still joint property.