The burden of proof lies on the manager of the family to establish self-acquired properties, and evidence regarding the joint family nucleus and the source of funds for property acquisition is crucial.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the two sons of the original defendant, who died after the suit was decreed. 1st respondent is the plaintiff; she sought partition andclaimed half share in the properties described in the schedules to the plaint. according to the plaintiff, her husband died as an undivided member of thejoint family which possessed the suit properties and that she was entitled to ashare in respect of which her husband had a right.

( 2 ) BASAPPA was the common ancestor; ramappa and shivappa are his sons; ramappa is the defendant; plaintiff is the widow of shivappa. Ramappa hastwo sons and five daughters. The two sons are the present appellants andrespondents 2 to 6 are the daughters of the said defendant. Plaintiff has adaughter who is not a party to these proceedings. Ramappa died on 27-2-1991. according to the plaint case, the joint family of basappa had a family house andleasehold agricultural lands and his eldest son ramappa was managing thefamily affairs; the family had good income; savings were with the defendantwhich were utilised by him to acquire further properties. Defendants contendedthat except the family house, all the suit properties belonged to him as they arehis self-acquired properties.

( 3 ) THE trial court framed the following issues : (I) does the plaintiff prove that suit properties are the joint familyproperties of plaintiff and defendant? (ii) does the plaintiff prove that suit properties are in joint possessionand enjoyment of plaintiff and defendant? (iii) does the defendant prove that suit properties are the self-acquiredproperties? (iv) whether plaintiff is entitled for any share in suit properly? If so, whatshare? (v) whether plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? (vi) what order or decree?

( 4 ) THE trial court held that the properties were acquired by ramappa who was the manager of the family and therefore presumption is that the propertiesbelonged to the joint family. Shivappa died on 12-1-1954 leaving behind hiswife, the plaintiff and a daughter. The trial court's decree is datcd 26-2-1991 andthe appeal memo slates that the defendant died on 27-2-1991.

( 5 ) IT was contended before us that in a suit for partition all the co-sharer sought to be impleaded as parties; since the plaintiff failed to implead thechildren of the defendant and the daughter of the plaintiff, suit was notmaintainable. It was further contended that the burden was entirely on theplaintiff to prove that the properties acquired by the defendant belonged to theundivided family of the defendant and his brother and this burden was notdischarged in the instant case. The case as pleaded by the plaintiff has to failbecause the basic facts asserted in the plaint were not proved at all.

( 6 ) IN this appeal two questions arise for our consideration : (1) whether the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parlies? And (2) whether the suit properties belong to the undivided family of thedefendant and his brother or they are the self-acquired properties ofthe defendant?

( 7 ) RE. Question No. 1: defendant's children (two sons and five daughters) were not impleaded as defendants. The two sons of the defendants are admittedly co-sharers even onthe basis of plaintiffs case. But no plea is found in the written statement as tothe maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessaryparties; no issue is framed involving this question. Further, on the dcath of thedefendant, the prcsenl appeal was filed by his two sons and the daughters wereimpleaded as respondents 2 to 6. In these circumstances the question whethernon-impleading of the appellants as parties in the trial court would affect themaintainability of the suit need not be considered, especially in the backgroundof our decision on the merits of the plaintiffs claim.

( 8 ) RE. Question No. 2: Sri g. s. visveswara, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that in theabsence of evidence as to any joint family nucleus availabl