The presumptions and onus of proof regarding joint family property under the Mitakshara law also apply to cases under the Dayabhaga law.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by defendant No. 1 Charan Dasi Debi arises out of a suit for partition of a residential house in Hooghly - Chinsurah Municipality. In order to understand the case the following genealogical table will be helpful.

( 2 ) THE disputed property belonged equally to the three brothers Sarada, Ramprasad and Gopal. Sarada died leaving his sons Debendra and Puma as heirs, Debendra being the elder. Ramprasad died leaving his daughter Kusum Kamari to inherit his share. Gopal had two sons, Atul and Jagannath as his heirs.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff who is the son of Purna is briefly that his father and uncle Debendra lived as members of a joint Hindu family undivided in estate and mess and Debendra was the Karta of that family, that Debendra and Purna acquired the one-third share of Kusum Kumari by a Kobala dated 14-6-1920 in the name of Debendra and that similarly they also acquired the 1/6th share of Atul in the property by a Kobala dated 19-5-1922. In this way the total share of the joint family of Debendra and Purna became 5/6th and after Puma's death the plaintiff's share has become 5/12th, the other 5/12th share belonging to Debendra's heirs who are defendants 2 to 10. The remaining 1/6th share of the property belongs to Defendants 11 to 14 as reversionary heirs of Atul, according to the case of the plaintiff and defendants 11 to 14. The plaintiff has brought this suit for partition claiming 5/12th share in the suit property.

( 4 ) THE suit has been contested by Defendant No. 1, Charan Dasi Devi widow of Debendra who died on 29-3-1944. According to her case, her husband Debendra and the plaintiff's father, Purna did not live in joint family nor was Debendra Karta of such family, nor did Debendra acquire the shares of Kusum Kumari and Atul as the Karta of that family. Her case further is that Debendra and Purna lived in separate mess in separate portions of the house and Debendra acquired the shares of Kusum Kumari and Atul out of his separate fund. It was further asserted by her that Debendra acquired the share of Purna by amicable arrangement and similarly he acquired the share of Jagannath as well and in this way he (i. e. Debendra) became the sole owner of the suit property.

( 5 ) BOTH the courts below have held concurrently that the defence case that Debendra had acquired by amicable arrangement the shares of Purna and Jagannath is not true and at the time of the hearing of this appeal, the concurrent findings of the lower courts on the above point have not been challenged, and the appeal has not been pressed in regard to this point. The plaintiff has, therefore, at least 1/6th share in the suit property.

( 6 ) THE controversy'in this appeal centres round the question whether the plaintiff can claim a bigger share and on this point the courts below have come to divergent conclusions. The trial court has repelled the plaintiff's claim to a arger share by virtue of the purchase by Debendra of the 1/3rd share of Kusum Kumari and 1/6th share of Atul: according to the plaintiff these purchases, though they stand in the name of Debendra, were made by Debendra as Karta of the Joint family and out of joint family funds. he trial court has held that these purchases were not the joint acquisitions of Debendra and Purna, but on the contrary, they were the acquisitions of Debendra alone and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to claim a share in them. Differing from the trial court, the lower appellate court has held, however, that the purchases were made by both Debendra and Purna, though they stood in the name of Debendra alone and accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to 5/12ths, and not to 1/6th alone, of the suit property, in Coming to the above finding the learned Appellate Judge has referred inter alia to the following circumstances. Purna and his wife lived and died in the disputed house which is the ancestral house of the Maitra family. After Puma's death his widow and children lived in joint