These connected appeals arise out of O.S. No. 54 of 1950 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court,South Kanara, which was is suit for partition of the properties belonging to a joint family consisting of the plaintiff and the defendants. Schedule A to the plaint is the genealogical tree showing the relationship of the parties from which it is seen that the ancestor was one Krishna Mardi through whose sons, Subraya Mardi and Ramappa Mardi. the other members of the family originated. As is seen therefrom the plaintiff is the son of Ramappa Mardi and he claims partition and separate possession of a one-fourth share in the joint family properties described in schedules B to E attached to the plaint. The main contest in the Court below was with regard to certain items of properties claimed by the respective groups of defendants as not belonging to the joint family. It was contended that those were the self-acquisitions of the claimants thereto, and in regard to the other points in controversy before the learned Subordinate Judge there is no dispute here.

Appeal No. 189 of 1952 is by defendants 3, 4 and 8 to 11 who are the descendants of Seetharama Mardi,the first defendant, and Appeal No. 559 of 1952 is filed by defendant 2, and defendants 5 to 7 who are the descendants of Ramachandra Mardi the second defendant.

In the plaint it is alleged that during the course of his family management the first defendant acquired items of properties contained in the C schedule in the name of his sons, defendants 3 and 4 from out of the income of the properties in B chedule and that he also acquired items contained in the D schedule in the name of his brother and his brother’s sons, defendants 2 and 5, from out of the income from the joint family properties in his hands. The plaintiff, therefore, alleged that the immoveable properties described in schedules C and D are the family properties of the parties and as such divisible. It was further alleged that the moveables set out in the E schedule should also be made the subject of division on the same basis. In separate written statements each of the groups of defendants pleaded that the items in C and D schedules were acquired by the respective defendants from out of their separate earnings as a result of their profession as Purohits and as such they cannot be considered as having anything to do with the joint family. This plea did not find favour with the learned Subordinate Judge who took the view that it cannot be contended as anything other than family properties, and that out of the income from the B schedule properties items in the C schedule were acquired and from the joint incomes of B and C schedules items in the other schedules were purchased and therefore they must be held to be partible. The learned Judge also held that the Purohit vrithi being a kulachara or a family occupation, income derived out of such a profession must also be deemed to be joint family properties and even if B and C schedule properties were purchased with such incomes still the joint family has an interest in them with the result that they are also liable to be partitioned.

We have, therefore, to find out firstly whether the disputed items of properties were acquired with the income from the properties which have been held to belong to the joint family and even if the finding on that question is in the negative whether the Purohit vrithi can be held to be a family avocation the benefits of which should be considered to be appertaining to the family.

The proposition of law is well established that it is not enough to show that the family had a nucleus of the family property in order that the later acquisitions made by the manager of the family should have the attribute of family character but what is necessary is that the nucleus must be such as to leave sufficient income therefrom after meeting the expenses as would enable the manager to acquire properties -with that. So far as this question is concerned the onl