The presumption that property acquired by a member of a joint family is joint family property only arises if the joint family had sufficient nucleus for acquiring it.

1. The defendant who succeeded before the Trial Court and lost before the lower appellate Court is the appellant.

2. The suit O.S. No. 64 of 1978 was filed by the respondent before the District Munsif s Court, Kulithalai for a declaration that he was entitled to the suit properties and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant, his men, agents and servants from any manner interfering with the respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment alleging as follows:- The parties were brothers. Under the original of Ex.A1 dated 26.9.1960, the appellant and the respondent purchased certain properties for a valid consideration of Rs.2,000, each contributing Rs. 1,000. In the re-survey joint pattas in patta No. 427, 1000, 211, 117, 258, 954 and 31 were issued to them. The mother of the parties also had separate properties of her own and after her death in 1967, the parties inherited those properties as her legal heirs. The mother's properties were comprised in S. Nos.1 17 and 247. All the properties purchased by the parties and inherited from their mother were jointly enjoyed by them. There was an oral partition in October, 1973 in which the A Schedule properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Eversince the date of the oral partition, the parties were in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares by paying kists separately, and raising loans from the co-operative credit society. B schedule properties belonged to the plaintiff as his separate and self-acquired properties. All the items in B Schedule excepting item 5, were purchased by the respondent from out of his own funds after the partition in the year 1973. Under a registered sale deed Ex.A2 dated 25.2.1974. Item 5 of B schedule property was purchased by the respondent in a Court auction sale and the consideration flowed from out of his own funds. Both the A and B schedule properties exclusively belonged to the respondent. He had raised loan by mortgaging the properties and of fering them as securities. He had also installed an electric motor pumpset in the well. He had incurred loan to the tune of Rs.20,000 for purchase of B schedule properties and for installation of the motor pumpset in the well. C schedule properties were in the possession and enjoyment of the respondent as a waramdar. While so, the appellant falsely claimed title to the properties and denied the title of the respondent due to misunderstanding and tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment.

3. The defence raised by the appellant was as follows:- The parties constituted a joint family and the appellant was the manager. They were having ancestral nucleus from which the suit properties and other properties were acquired by them for the benefit of the joint family. A and B schedule properties were joint family properties of the parties. B schedule properties were purchased from out of the joint family funds. Item 5 of B schedule was purchased from out of the joint family funds and for purchasing that item, one of the family properties was sold and the sale proceeds deposited in the Court. C schedule lands were lease-hold of the family and were being enjoyed by the members of the family in common. The appellant as family manager was in management of the C schedule property. In these circumstances, there could be no relief to the plaintiff. The division alleged and allotment of A schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and his exclusive enjoyment of the same were all false. The suit had been filed on account of the enmity between the parties.

4. The Trial Court found that the suit properties were not the exclusive properties of the respondent, that he had not proved the oral partition alleged in the plaint, that B schedule properties were purchased from out of the joint family nucleus, that the respondent did not have exclusive possession of the suit properties, that the properties were purchased from out of the joint