The acquisition of property by a member of a joint family is presumed to be for the benefit of the joint family, and the burden of proof lies on the person claiming that the property is self-acquired to rebut this presumption.

P. GOVINDAN NAIR, C. J. :- This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for partition, and the only contest in this appeal is about the partibility of one item of the properties, namely, Item No. 1 of the A schedule, which was acquired in the name of the deceased husband of the first defendant under the sale deed Exhibit B-1, dated 20-6-1963. There were other items of properties scheduled to the plaint, and no dispute arises in this appeal regarding their partibility. As regards item No. 1 of the A schedule, it was held by the trial Court that it belonged to the husband of the first defendant, the deceased Dandapani Iyer, and that the property was his self-acquired properly and not joint family property. The appeal by the plaintiff before this court having failed, he has come up before this court by way of Letters Patent Appeal.

2. On behalf of the appellant counsel contended that there was clear evidence available in the case about the existence of sufficient nucleus for the acquisition of item No. 1 of A schedule under Ex. B-1, sale deed. Before we deal with this aspect and the arguments advanced we would like to mention a few facts.

3. The plaintiff is the brother of the deceased Dandapani Iyer. Both of them were married. The plaintiff had two sons and a daughter and Dandapani Iyer had five daughters and two sons. One of the daughters died after marriage. Dandapani Iyer was employed as an advocate' s clerk and he was also doing job typing. The plaintiff was also employed as a clerk in a bank and he too was doing job typing. The extent of the income earned by these two persons is not known. Both the families were living in the same house which was bought under Ex. A-1. They were, however having separate mess from 1956.

4. There was admittedly at least one joint family property of over an acre of wet lands, and that property was sold under Ex. A-4 dated 15-5-1963. This property was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 3,000, Rs. 200 had been received in advance and on the date of registration, the balance was paid to Dandapani Iyer. The vendors were Dandapani Iyer and the plaintiff and the amount was paid before the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar also has certified that such a payment was made. It is said that this amount was paid to Dandapani Iyer with the consent of the plaintiff. It was shortly thereafter, on 20-6-1963. under Exhibit B-1 the house in which the two brothers with their families were staving, was purchased, and the consideration for the sale was Rs. 1,600. On the basis of these facts, counsel for tile appellant rightly submitted before us that he has been able to establish not only the existence of nucleus, but the existence of sufficient nucleus from which Ex. B-1 property could have been purchased. This factor taken along with the other circumstances, namely, the relationship of the parties and the sale of an admitted joint family property, leads to the presumption that the acquisition under Ex B-1 was for the benefit of the joint family. When this presumption is drawn, it is for the first defendant, widow of Dandapani Iyer who claims that the property belonged to Dandapani Iyer, to establish that the property was acquired by Dandapani Iyer, with his own funds. Regarding this aspect, the case of the first defendant has not been consistent. In the written statement, she pleaded that the funds for the acquisition of Ex. B-1 property were provided from the earnings of the deceased Dandapani Iyer. At the time when she gave evidence, she deposed that the property was acquired with the amounts received by the sale of her jewellery. This type of inconsistent pleas does not inspire confidence. There is no evidence worth the name to show that Dandapani Iyer had sufficient amounts with him at the time of the acquisition of Ex. B-1 property. We have already mentioned that he had a large family. The income from the family properties is not known. Apparently, the only income was from the property sold under E