The burden of proof lies on those asserting joint family property, and the presumption of joint family property can be rebutted by evidence of separate funds or family consent for separate acquisition.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the suit Pandikasala, that is, the warehouse, was the separate property of one Kunhi Tharuvayi Haji or the property of the first defendants tavazhi. The site of the said warehouse together with certain buildings thereon were purchased on 15th January, 1922, by Poovantbankandi Hassankutti Company of which Kunhi Tharuvayi Haji was a partner. After the purchase, the firm also effected certain improvements. The firm closed its business in or about 1916. The accounts of the said business were looked into and a deed of dissolution was executed between the partners in or about January, 1920, as evidenced by Ex. K. Under the deed of dissolution the site of the warehouse and the buildings thereon were allotted to. the share of Kunhi Tharuvayi Haji. It was stated in the deed that a sum of Rs. 4,600 was due "being the balance due to him after deducting the receipts and expenses from and out of the total sums due to him for his share of the profits and assets," and there was a covenant by the partners to the following effect:

We have also authorised No. 2 (Kunhi Tharuvayi Haji) to hold possession of the said properties and to create alienations in respect thereof as he pleases.

2. Subsequent to the acquisition of this property, Kunhi Tharuvayi Haji demolished certain structures and built the suit Pandikasala at a cost of over Rs. 3,000. He appears to have been letting it and realising income therefrom. In 1929 he let it to the first plaintiff. In or about October, 1929, K.T. Haji died and disputes arose between his wife and children and the tavazhi in regard to the title to the property. On the 5th March, 1930, Abdulla the then karnavan sent a registered notice to the plaintiff claiming the property as tavazhi property. A similar notice was given by the wife and children claiming the property as the sole property of K.T. Haji to which they were entitled to succeed as his heirs. In consequence of the disputes thus raised the first plaintiff filed an interpleader suit on 19th December, 1932. The first defendant was impleaded as the karnavan of the tavazhi, Abdulla having died in the meanwhile, defendants 2, 3 and 4 being the sons and the fifth defendant being the wife of K.T. Haji. The second defendant died subsequent to the institution of the suit and his wife was added as the sixth defendant. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 we re subsequently transposed as supplemental plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the suit. Both the wife and children and the first defendant filed statements asserting their respective claims to the property. The said Tharuvayi Haji was karnavan of his tavazhi for several years up to the date of his death. It is conceded that while he was the karnavan he was allowed to carry on separate trade and have separate acquisitions. Similarly his brother Abdulla was allowed to do so. This fact was admitted in a family karar Ex. G dated 9th June, 1911, between the members of the family. On the date of the said karar, K.T. Haji was the karnavan. He was party No. 1 to the deed and his brother Abdulla, party No. 2. In regard to the firm of Assankutti Company, wherein K.T. Haji was a partner, there occurs the following recital:

The assets that may be found as due to No. 1 in respect of the partnership trade carried on by No. 1 under name of Kelluvalappil Assankutti Haji and Company and in respect of the trade carried on by him under the name of Mukkathumprath Poovathankutty Assankutti Company from the self-acquisition of No. 1...As regards the property and assets belonging to No. 1 as his own as mentioned above, No. 1 has executed a will bequeathing the said property and assets to be enjoyed by his wife and children after his death.

3. A similar recital was made in regard to No. 2. Abdulla to the effect that he was carrying on a partnership business with one Mammad Kutti Haji and that the assets of that trade form his self-acquisition and that he could deal with them as