has further stated that the first defendant has admitted that he was owning only a bullock cart and nothing else. In my considered view, for a poor villager, who is doing a small firewood business, one cannot expect him to maintain an account and get it audited. It is a normal practice in villages for the small farmers and villagers to do firewood business without maintaining any record. Such presumption, in my considered view, is possible under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, by normal human conduct of the villagers in this State. Therefore, non production of account book or non production of any license for doing firewood business would not in any manner go adverse to the claim made by the first defendant that he was doing firewood business. It is also common knowledge that for doing firewood business in a small size, it is enough for a person to own a bullock cart to carry firewood from a village and sell it in a nearby town. This evidence of the first defendant would also further strengthen the admission made by the plaintiff, as dealt with herein above, which would go to rebut the presumption raised in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, I hold that the first defendant has rebutted presumption raised in favour of the plaintiff and thus, he has proved that the joint family had no sufficient income and that the suit property would not have been purchased from out of the joint family income.
