The presumption is in favor of a business being regarded as joint family property if it is carried on with the assets of a joint family and there is no proof to rebut the presumption.

RAMAMURTI, J. :- This appeal arises out of a suit, O.S. No. 176 of 1954, Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, filed by the first respondent herein, for partition and separate possession of his one-ninth share, after taking an account of the properties, cash, business assets, bank deposits, jewellery, moveables etc. The plaintiff's suit has been substantially decreed as prayed for by him, and the plaintiff's father, the first defendant in the suit, the latter's wife, the 2nd defendant, and their son (the plaintiff's step brother), the third defendant, are the appellants in the present appeal. In order to appreciate the relationship between the parties, the following genealogical tree is set out :

The case of the plaintiff, who is the son of the first defendant through his first wife is that after the death of the plaintiff's grandfather, Guna Jeer Bhagavathar in 1901 his four' sons, i.e., the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff's three uncles, were under the guardianship and protection of their mother, Ahilandammal, that they have been carrying on a business in javuli to start with in a small scale, that with the aid of such meagre nucleus as existed and by joint labour and exertion, the business expanded from time to time, that in 1919 the eldest brother, G, Radhakrishna got himself divided from his three brothers, and went out of the family, that at the time all the assets of the family consisting of the stock in trade, debts, outstanding, ancestral house were divided with the aid of certain well wishers and panchayatdars, that under the scheme of division the brother, Radhakrishnan, was given his one fourth share and the other three brothers took (together and as one unit) the other three-fourth share, and that thereafter the other three brothers carried on the business in javuli under the name and style of Gunnaji Krishnan and Bros, and the business ex-paneled and flourished considerably from time to time and out of the income and assets of the said business all the suit properties were purchased and acquired. The plaintiffs father's case is that as and when the sons of the three brothers attained majority, they also attended to and participated in the business, that during the years 1946-18 when the plaintiff was employed in the railway office at Golden Rock the plaintiff attended to the business during his leisure hours and holidays, that after 1948 the plaintiff completely ail ended to the aforesaid business, Ginnaji Krishnan and Bros. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition on the ground that from 1951 disputes have arisen between the members of his family, particularly between the three brothers, that the dispute took a serious turn about Deepavali time in 1954 on account of the wrongful conduct and unhelpful attitude of the first defendant. There were charges and counter-charges between the first defendant and his brothers and the plaintiff, each charging the other with secretion of assets consisting of the stock in trade, and outstandings and cash deposit in the banks. The complaint of the plaintiff is that in 1951, the plaintiff was driven out of the house by the first defendant and he was living separately with his father-in-law and all attempts on the part of the plaintiff to obtain his legitimate one-ninth share in all the family properties proved futile, as the first defendant took sides with the second wife and her bon and denied the right of the plaintiff to a share putting forward that the properties in question are not joint family properties but the self-acquired properties of himself and his two brothers. The immoveable properties have been set out in the A schedule while the stock in trade of the business, the outstandings and bank deposits have been set out in the B schedule : the C schedule consisting of the moveables and the jewels. The plaintiff also claimed that the moneys deposited in the names of the female members of the family and in particular in the name of the second defendant, his step-