Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. Plaintiffs claim for partition of some items of property which he alleged to be joint family property, though allowed by the first Court, was disallowed by the lower appellate Court. He has accordingly preferred this second appeal claiming a share in those properties.

2. The plaintiff and defendant 3 are the sons of defendant 1 by his wife, who died in 1891. Defendant 2 is the son of defendant 1 by his second wife, who has been made defendant 6 in the case after the death of defendant 1 during the pendency of the suit.

3. The plaintiff claims a share in the properties on the ground that (a) the presumption of Hindu Law is that all properties standing in the name of any member of the joint family is joint family property, and the onus of proving the same to be the self-acquired and separate property of any member is upon him, (b) the properties in dispute were acquired by defendant 1 with the aid of the sale proceeds of the ornaments of the plaintiffs mother (worth about Rs. 600) and also out of the moneys which belonged to one Thangathanni, it being alleged that Thangathanni was the deceased paternal aunt of defendant 1, and that she orally bequeath