A coparcener can abandon his separate claim to a self-acquired property and impress it with the character of joint family property by his conduct and action.

( 1 ) THE 1st defendant has preferred appeal No. 430 of 1965 against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 26 of 56 and the plaintiff has preferred appeal No. 188 of 67 against the same decree to the extent his claim has been disallowed by the trail court. Tr. Appeal No. 254 of 1966 is preferred by the legal representatives of the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 26/56, who happened to be the plaintiff in O. S. No. 111 of 1962. The 3rd defendant has preferred cross objections in appeal Nos. 430 of 1965 and 188/67 arising out of O. S. No. 26 of 1956.

( 2 ) THE main questions to be answered in these appeals are: (1) whether there was sufficient ancestral nucleus which formed the basis for the acquisition of the properties shown in A to D schedules attached to the plaint in O. S. No. 26/56. (2) If there was sufficient ancestral nucleus whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties as claimed by him; and (3) whether, even if there was no sufficient ancestral nucleus which could have formed the basis for the acquisition of the first defendant by his conduct and action, impressed the suit properties with the character of joint family properties so as to entitle the plaintiff to a share in the suit properties. Another question that arises incidentally is whether all or nay of the suit properties represent the accretions to the estate of late Voleti Chenchuramaiah, which devolved, under a will, on the wife of the 1st defendant and the mother of the 3rd defendant who was now laid claims to all the suit properties.

( 3 ) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the questions involved are these. The 1st defendant is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. The 3rd defendant is the sister of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that there was sufficient ancestral nucleus at the time of the partition of the properties between his father, the 1st defendant and his brothers in or about he year 1903 and that, with that nucleus, he opened a provision shop, carried on business in rice and cashew nuts and later joined as a partner in partnership with others in a rice mill business and that, from the income realised from the rice mill and other ventures, he acquired the plaintiff schedule properties. It was also alternatively pleaded by the plaintiff that his father was managing the properties, which devolved upon his mother under a will executed by her father and that, with the income realised from these properties and also from the properties belonging to the joint family, he acquired the suit schedule properties and that in either case, he is entitled to a one-third share in the entire properties set out in the schedules, as the will executed by Chenchuramaiah provides for devolution of all his assets on the children of his daughter, Kamakshamma, i. e. , the mother of the plaintiff, after his death.

( 4 ) THE 2nd defendant supported the case of the plaintiff and asked for partition of the properties on the basis that he is also entitled to a one-third share in the entire suit properties.

( 5 ) THE defence of the 3rd defendant is that she is entitled to the entire suit properties, as all the acquisitions now shown as plaint schedule properties were acquired with the income derived by her father from the management of the properties which devolved upon her mother under a will, Ex. B-141 dated 29-2-1912 and that she is entitled to all the suit properties as her mother, Kamakshamma, died in the year 1948.

( 6 ) THE main defence in this case is put forth by the 1st defendant, the father of the plaintiff. According to him, none of the items shown in the plaint schedules belonged to the joint family of himself and his sons or formed part of the accretions to the estate of late Voleti Chenchuramaiah, the father of his wife, and that they are all his self-acquired properties in which neither the plaintiff nor defendants 2 and 3 have any manner of right or claim. It is his