the companytention of the appellant has been negatived by both the lower companyrts and there is a companycurrent finding that the ambika stores was the separate business of muniswami raju and it was neither the joint family business number treated as joint family business it is wellestablished that there is numberpresumption under hindu law that a business standing in the name of any member of the joint family is a joint family business even if that member is the manager of the joint family.
muniswami raju later on employed the plaintiff in his shop as a salaried servant and the latter had no proprietary right in the business of ambika stores.
the joint status of the family was severed by the issue of a registered numberice by the first defendant to the plaintiff in july 1951.
the high companyrt cancelled the i direction of the district judge that the plaintiff should account for the moneys and properties of muniswami raju in his hands before he is given possession of his share.
this appeal is brought by certificate on behalf of the plaintiff from the judgment of the mysore high companyrt dated march 25 1960 in r.a.
the plaintiff accordingly claimed that he and the first defendant would each be entitled to get 5/14ths share and the second and third defendants would each be entitled to get 2/14ths.
by its judgment dated march 25 1960 the high companyrt affirmed the decree of the trial companyrt with the modification that besides item number i of schedule a item number 2 also should be hold to be joint family property and the plaintiff was entitled to partition of his share in this item also.
the case of the original plaintiff was that he the first defendant and muniswami raju husband of the second defendant were the sons of one gopala raju and were all members of the joint family gopalaraju died in may 1931 and after his death the plaintiff and his brothers continued to be members of the joint family.
the third defendant is the legal representative of the plaintiffs mother.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated march 25 1960 of the mysore high companyrt in regular appeal number 155 of 1953.
in the alternative the plaintiff pleaded that if for any reason the companyrt held that the properties stand in the name of muniswami raju and were number acquired with the aidof the joint familv nucleus he and the second defendant were entitled to equal shares as companyowners of the joint family business.
the suit was mainly companytested by the second defendant who asserted that the properties mentioned in all the schedules of the plaint were self acquisitions of miiniswami raju and companystituted his separate properties.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 613 of 1965.
share.
out of the companypensation paid for that house and supplemented by the earnings of the members of the joint family the house item number i of schedule a to the plaint was purchased by gopalaraju in or about the year 1910.
the second defendant is the widow of muniswami raju the eldest brother of the plaintiff.
it was alleged that muniswami raju was the only carniiig member of the family at the time of the acquisition of items 1 and 2 of schedule operties and the plaintiff and the first defendant were emplovedin petty jobs in wesley press.
accordingly the district judge granted a preliminary decree holding that the plaintiff was entitled to 2/7ths share in item number i of schedule a. the plaintiff took the matter in appeal to the mysore high companyrt.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ramaswami j. the plaintiff g. narayana raju filed o.s.
r. gokhale b. subbiah and r. thiagaraian for respondents number.
number 155 of 1953.
krishnamurthy and r. gopdlakrishnan for the appellant.
all the other items of properties mentioned in schedule a and other schedules attached to the plaint were acquired out of the income from items 1 and 2 of schedule a it was further alleged that the business knumbern as ambika stores was also the joint family business and all the properties mentioned in the schedules except items i and 2 of schedule a were acquired out of the income of the members of the family including the income from the business of ambika stores.
subsequently item number 2 of schedule a was also purchased by gopalaraju from the income of item number i supple mented by the earnings of the members of the family.
after consideration of the oral and documentary evidence the district judge held that the plaintiff first defendant and muniswami raju were number divided and that the only property which was divisible was item number i of schedule a and there was number sufficient ancestral nucleus for acquisition of the other properties and that all properties except item number 1 of schedule a were the self acquisitions of muniswami raju that muniswami i raju never blended his properties with that of the joint family that the plaintiff was only an employee under muniswami raju and therefore he was number entitled to the alternativ relief claimed by him.
34 of 1951 52 in the companyrt of district judge mysore for partition and separate possession of suit properties mentioned in the various schedules of the plaint.
the first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff.
an ancestral house in nazar bad belonging to the family was acquired by the city iuprovementtrust board in or about the year 1909.
2 and 4.
she is number the appellant having been brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff.
