The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish that the properties are joint family properties, and the court will consider evidence of joint exertion and contribution by family members for the acquisition of properties.

1. The only question for decision in this appeal by the plaintiff is as to whether the suit properties are joint family properties available for partition among the parties to the suit or are they separate properties of the acquirers. According to the plaintiff, he and the defendants belong to a joint Hindu family of the descendants of one Bhakta Shetty. The 12 items of properties mentioned in the plaint are the acquisitions of Parades! Shetty on behalf of the joint family and are therefore available for partition among the members of the joint family. The suit is resisted by defendants 6, 7 and 9. According to them some of the properties were the acquisitions of their predecessor Paradesi Shetty and some other properties are separate acquisitions of defendant 6 and her son Bapputta Shetty. The court below has found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the properties are joint family properties and has accordingly dismissed the suit. It is against this that the plaintiff has come up in appeal.

2. There is no dispute about the correctness of the genealogy shown in page 4 of the printed judgment of the court below. Bhakta Shetty, the common ancestor, had two sons Vittala Shetty and Bapputta Shetty. Paradesi Shetty is the son of Bapputty Shetty. He died in the year 1952. The 6th defendant is his widow. They had a son by name Bapputta Shetty. He died in the year 1938, even before the death of Parades Shetty. The 7th defendant is his widow. Defendant 8 is a daughter of Bapputta Shetty and defendant 9 is the daughter of Devayani, a deceased daughter of Bapputta Shetty. Vittala Shetty, son of Bhakta Shetty, had three sons-Angada Shetty, Hari Shetty and Bikkari Shetty. The plaintiff is the son of Bikkari Shetty. Defendants 1 to S are the descendants of Angada Shetty and Hari Shetty.

3. There is no dispute that the suit properties, except two items standing in the names of Bapputta Shetty and defendant 6, are the acquisitions of Paradesi Shetty. According to the plaintiff even those items standing in the names of Bapputta Shetty and the 6th defendant are also acquisitions of Paradesi Shetty in their names. The only ground on which the plaintiff claims the suit properties as joint family properties is for the reason stated in Para.5 of the plaint extracted below:

"Paradesi, the head of the family, was the manager of the family properties Angada Shetty grandfather of defendants 1 and 2, Hari Shetty grandfather of defendants 3 to 5 and Bikkari Shetty father of the plaintiff were co-owners of the properties. They were all brokers getting large incomes and were helping with their income from their business and funds the manager to purchase properties. Though purchases of properties were made in the manager's name, Angada Shetty, Hari Shetty and Bikkari Shetty contributed handsomely their mites in the purchase. So all properties are entitled to be partitioned equally amongst the co-owners. Even otherwise after death of Paradasi Shetty, his rights in the properties devolve upon the other co-parceners by survivorship i.e. upon. Angada Shetty. Hari Shetty and Bikkari Shetty whose rights devolve by survivorship upon plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 after their death. So plaintiff and defendants 1 to S are entitled to partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties into 3 shares with mesne profits, since they are the joint owners in possession of the plaint schedule properties."

Except for the allegation that Paradesi Shetty was the manager of the family properties, there is nothing on record to show that the family was possessed of any properties except a residential boose in Fort Cochin, where some of the members of the family were living. Even though there may be a presumption that a Hindu family is a joint family, there is no presumption that the family is possessed of joint properties (vide K. Obul Reddy v. B. Venkata Narayana Reddy AIR 1984 SC 1171). The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the family w