There is presumption that acquisitions are for the benefit of the family.

Defendant in O.S.No.476 of 1974, on the file of District Munsif’s Court, Kallakkurichi, is the appellant.

2. Plaintiff and defendant are brothers, and they are the sons of Thulasi Naicker. It is the case of the plaintiff that he acquired the plaint schedule properties under Exx.A.1 to A.25, between the period 1943 to 1967 and the defendant is interfering with his possession. It is also the plaintiff’s case that all the properties are his self-acquisitions, and his father died only about ten years prior to the institution of the suit and he was managing the family. It is his further case that he is doing business even from his young age, in paddy, groundnut, gingelly and jaggery, and out of the income earned from the business, he was in a position to acquire all these items. None of these items are family properties, nor were they purchased from out of the family income, nor was he the manager at that time. The family had only two items of properties, i.e., Ac. 1-43 cents of punja land and Ac.0.74 cents of nanja lands. The income from the joint family properties was hardly sufficient for the maintenance of the family. There was no surplus income. Plaintiff did not purchase the suit properties out of the ancestral nucleus. After the death of the father, defendant is interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit properties. Hence the suit was filed. In fact, a notice (copy marked as Ex.A-44) was issued by the plaintiff himself asking the defendant not to interfere with his possession, and Ex.A.45 reply was sent by the defendant, contending that the plaint properties are the family properties, and also claiming one half share in those items.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellant (defendant), it was contended that all the plaint items are family acquisitions. Even though they were taken in the name of the plaintiff, that will not make them self-acquisitions of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was managing the affairs of the family. The father was incapable of managing the affairs, and plaintiff being the elder member of the family, and being the elder son of the father, was really controlling the affairs of the family. The business that he was carrying on, was family business, and all of them have contributed for acquisition of the properties. It is also said that when dispute arose, there was a panchayat, and the plaintiff himself has agreed to give half share to the defendant. He denied the alleged trespass or attempt to trespass.

4. The trial court marked Exx.A-1 to A-47 on the side of plaintiff. Plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 1 and another witness as P.W.2. Exx.B-1 to B-6 were marked on the side of the defendant. D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on the side of the defendant. D.W.3 is the defendant himself. D.Ws.1 and 2 are close relations of the parties.

5. The trial court held that the properties are family properties and declared the plaintiff’s right over one half share. The trial court was of the view that the case of the plaintiff that he was earning even before marriage cannot be accepted. It was found that normally an unmarried and undivided member will not be allowed to do business separately or to purchase properties separately. It was also found by the trial court that it is not unusual in a Hindu joint family to put the different members of the family in different professions for the interest of the family and to have purchased properties for the family in the name of the elder son of the family out of the income of all the members of the family and also out of the joint family nucleus. The trial court was also of the view that it was for the plaintiff to prove that all the properties are self-acquisitions and that he had income of his own. It further held that in the circumstances of the case, it is hardly believable that P. W. 1 (plaintiff) was carrying on business of his own excluding the other members of the family. It also held that ‘Thulasi Naicker and the defendant could have bee