( 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 a