Phillips, Offg. C.J.

1. The finding of the lower Court which has been especially attacked in this appeal is a finding that the defendant (appellant) mingled his earnings as a vakil with the income from the admitted joint family property and thereby must be deemed to have thrown his self-acquisition into the common fund. Admittedly there was an income of at least Rs. 280 from the joint family property and this came into the defendants hands on the death of his brother who was the husband of plaintiff 1. The main contention raised in appeal is that this income from the joint family property was insufficient for the mere maintenance of the defendant, his wife, his mother and four children and that therefore, he utilized other moneys to provide such maintenance and it is argued that there can be no inference from that fact that he intended to make these other moneys, or rather his self-acquisition, joint family property. This contention has been specifically negatived by the Privy Council in Rajani Kanta Pal v. Jaga Mohan Pal A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 57, where they say:

Indeed, the fact urged on behalf of the respondents that joint family expenses exceeded all the property which, accordi