JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for an account. The Plaintiff seeks for an account from his brother, the Defendant No. 1, who was the karta of the family for some time and who has now established a prosperous money-lending business. The Plaintiff asks that the Defendant No. 1 may be directed to render an account of that business, with a view to claiming a share in the profits. 2. The Defendant, on the other hand, states that all his acquisitions were self-acquisitions, that he did not acquire anything by means of the joint family funds, and that, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to an account. 3. Both the lower Courts have found in favour of the Defendant and have dismissed the suit. 4. The Plaintiff appeals to us and contends that the money received on the marriage of a member of a joint family Is joint property, and that even If that be not so, a sum of Rs. 400 which the Defendant No. 1 got from his father at the time of his first marriage should be held to have been the nucleus of his money lending business. He also contends that; the onus has been wrongly placed upon him. 5. It appears that Defendant No. 1 inherited no money from his father and received no money from the joint funds of the family. He, however, has contracted five marriages and has received considerable sums at each of these marriages. The Defendant No. 1 is a kulin Brahmin and has married into non-kulin families and thus acquired various sums of money as presents. At his first marriage he received Rs. 1,200 and gave Rs. 800 to his father (or his father took Rs. 800 from him) while the Defendant No. 1 himself retained Rs. 400 only. It is now asked that this sum of Rs. 400 be held to have been given to the Defendant No. 1 by his father at the time of his first marriage and that it must be presumed that in formed the nucleus of the money lending business. It Is also contended that the onus is on the Defendant No. 1 to show that he did not gain the property now in his possession by means of this Rs. 400 and that it is not on the Plaintiff to show that the Defendant's money was not self-acquired. 6. It Is also contended that the onus is on the Defendant No. 1 to show that he did not gain the property now in his possession by means of this Rs. 400 and that it is not on the Plaintiff to show that the Defendant's money was not self-acquired. 6. Now, both the Courts below find, as a matter of fact, that the money lending business was established by the Defend-ant No. 1 with his own money and with the money which he received at his marriage and that this money cannot be considered as joint family property. We see no reason to dissent from this view. No authority has been shown to us to lead us to the conclusion that such property is joint property, or is property which a member of a joint family is bound to add to the joint funds. It seems to us that the general rule is that whatever a member of a joint family acquires by means of the use of the joint family funds is, joint property, but that money acquired by such a member himself in the manner in which the Defendant No. 1 gained his fortune is not joint property. We, therefore, think that this appeal must fall. There is no presumption that the Rs. 400 which the Defendant No. 1 acquired at his first marriage was joint family property; and we do not consider that the onus has been wrongly placed on the Plaintiff. The appeal is dismissed with costs.