The judgment establishes the principle that the burden of proof shifts to the manager to establish self-acquisitions only if the plaintiffs establish the availability of surplus income from the joint family nucleus.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs before the courts below have filed this second appeal.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore for partition of 1?5th share in item Nos.1 to 13 and 2?5th share in item Nos.14 to 19 of the plaint schedule properties, and also for 2?5th share in the 'B' schedule jewels.

3. The plaintiffs are the daughters of the 1st defendant. According to them, the 1st defendant, their deceased brother Ramalingam and their father were members of the Hindu joint family. Items 1 to 4 are the ancestral properties of the 1st defendant and items 5 to 13 were acquired with the aid of the ancestral nucleus and treated as joint family properties. Items 15 to 19 of the A schedule properties were also purchased by their mother Anjalai Ammal from out of her own funds in her name. It is the case of the plaintiffs that item No. 14 was purchased by their mother with her own funds for her benefits, but in the name of her son Ramalingam. On that basis the plaintiffs have come forward with the above suit.

4. The defendants contested the suit contending inter alia that items 1 and 3 alone were the ancestral properties, that the income from the ancestral properties was not even sufficient to maintain the family and therefore there was no surplus income to acquire the other properties and that the other items were acquired by the 1st defendant from out of his own funds without the aid of the joint family nucleus. With respect to item 14, it is the case of the defendants that the same was purchased though in the name of Ramalingam or in the name of Anjalai but only from out of his earnings and so all the properties exclusively belong to the 1st defendant.

5. Thetrial court has found that items 1 to 4 are ancestral properties. With respect to items 6 to 13 it was found that the same were acquired by the 1st defendant out of his own income, and they are the separate properties of the 1st defendant. With respect to item 14 it was held that the same was purchased in the name of Ramalingam by the 1st defendant for the benefit of Ramalingam. With respect to items 15 to 19 it was held that they were separate properties of Anjalai Ammal. With regard to the jewels it was found that the same were not available. On that basis the trial court has granted a preliminary decree for partition of plaintiff's 2?10th share in items 1 to 5, 2?5th share in items 14 to 19.

6. So, the plaintiffs filed appeal in A.S.No.86 of 1985 on the file of the District Court, South Arcot at Cuddalore. The defendants filed Cross Objection with respect to items 2,4,5 and 14 to 19. The lower appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court with respect to items 1 to 4 holding that they are joint family properties. While dealing with item 5, the lower appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that it is the separate property of the 1st defendant. With respect to item 14, the lower appellate court has held that the said property was purchased in the name of Ramalingam by the 1st defendant for his benefit. With respect to items 6 to 13 and 15 to 19, the lower appellate court has confirmed the judgment of the trial court. With respect to the building in item 15, the lower appellate court has held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the building portion. With reference to 'B' Schedule properties, the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal. The lower appellate court has also allowed the cross objection insofar as items 5 and 14 and the building in item 15. Hence the appellants plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.

7. Thesubstantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this second appeal are:-

(1) Whether on the facts, the presumption that the properties acquired from and out of joint family funds, partake the character of joint family properties, is applicable?

(2) Whether, with reference to items 5 to 14, the 1st defendant had established that those i