The presumption of law is that all property possessed by a joint Hindu family is joint property, and the burden of proof shifts to the member claiming any portion of the property as his separate property to show that it was acquired by him in a manner that would constitute it his separate property.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants appeal arising out of Suit No. 2 of 1959 which was a sequel to Suit No. 220 of 1958 against which a second appeal is still pending in this Court. The earlier suit was brought by the present appellant Dal Chand against Hukum Singh (tenant and impleaded as defendant No. 5 in the present suit) in respect of arrears of rent which were alleged to have been paid to the present plaintiff viz. . Babu Ram. He had actually applied to be impleaded as a manager of the joint family in the earlier suit but Dal Chand plaintiff of the earlier suit raised an objection and the application for impleadment was dismissed. It was in these circumstances that babu Ram filed Suit No. 2 of 1959 giving rise to the present appeal.

( 2 ) THE relief claimed in this suit was a declaration that the Kothi in question was a joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Hukum Singh and Gur Dayal, being tenants of the Kothi, were impleaded as defendants Nos. 5 and 6 respectively. The plaint allegations were that the plaintiffs viz. Sobha Ram (plaintiff No. 2) and Prakash Chand (plaintiff No. 3) and defendants Nos. 1 to 4, namely, Dal Chand, Kashi Ram, Madan Lal and Bhaewan Dass were sons of plaintiff No. 1, namely, Babu Ram. that the plaintiffs and the aforesaid defendants Nos. 1 to 4 constituted a joint Hindu family which had been doing cloth business till 1954, they were importers and wholesale dealers of cloth in the district of Badaun and they had been paying income-tax and Sales Tax. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 1 Babu Ram purchased a Kothi out of the joint family funds in his capacity as the Manager of the said joint family, though the sale-deed was executed in favour of defendant No. 1 Dal Chand. The plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 Sobha Ram and Prakash Chand and the defendants Nos. 2 to 4, namely, kashi Ram, Madan Lal and Bhagwan Dass were minors at the time of the purchase and defendant No. 1 Dal Chand alone was major and used to sit in the shop along with plaintiff No. 1 and assist him in his business. It was further alleged that the said Kothi had been in possession of the entire joint family and plaintiff No. 1 had been letting it out and realising the rent of the said kothi as the Karta of the joint family. The rent deeds were sometimes executed in the name of defendant No. 1 Dal Chand but plaintiff No. 1 Babu Ram used to realise the rent either himself or through his sons. The income of the said Kothi was deposited in the joint family fund and the income-tax was assessed on the income of the joint family property and the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 4 treated the said Kothi as the joint family property. The defendants Nos. 5 and 6 Hukum Singh and Gur Dayal had taken the said Kothi in two different portions from plaintiff No. 1 as Karta of the joint family. The plaintiff No. 1 Babu Ram got a rent deed executed from defendant No. 5 in the name of defendant No. 1 on 11-5-1949. Similarly another rent deed was executed in favour of defendant No. 1 on 15-1-1956 and one more rent deed was executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 Babu Ram on 16-1-1956. It was alleged that defendant No. 5 Hukum Singh had been actually paying rent to the joint family fund but since defendant No. 1 Dal Chand filed suit No. 220 of 1958 for arrears of rent against Hukum singh the plaintiffs were obliged to file the present suit.

( 3 ) DAL Chand, defendant No. 1 alone filed a written statement denying the possession of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 over the Kothi in question and alleged that he was himself in exclusive possession thereof and that the suit was, therefore, barred by Section 42 of the specific Relief Act. His defence further was that the Kothi was his self-acquired property, he had purchased it with his own funds on 28-5-1937 and got it constructed and had spent his own money in the electric installation in the said building. He claimed to be in exclu