JUDGMENT Malik, J. - This is a Plaintiffs' appeal. The Plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that a deed of gift dated the 10th of September, 1930, executed by their father Risal Singh, Defendant No, 2, in favour of Mangal Singh, Defendant No. 1, was null and void inasmuch as the property gifted was joint family property and for possession of the same. The defence was that the property was the self-acquired property of Risal Singh and he was, therefore, competent to make a gift of it. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows: 3. The family possessed certain ancestral property. The learned Counsel for the Defendant stated that it was 3 bighas, 4 biswas zamindari share in a village and 7 bighas 2 biswas, pukhta in occupancy holdings Learned Counsel for the Appellants, however, alleges that the zamindari share was 10 bighas and the occupancy holdings were 14 bighas 4 biswas. The difference between the two learned Counsel is due. I am told, to the fact that while the learned Counsel for the Appellants has given the katcha bighas, learned Counsel for the Respondent has given the figure in accordance with pucca bighas. Beside the property mentioned above there seems to have been no other ancestral property belonging to the family It is further admitted that besides agriculture Risal Singh and his two sons did not carry out aay other profession or occupation. Their entire source of income, therefore, was from agriculture and from the ancestral properties mentioned above. 4. There is no satisfactory evidence as to what was the exact income from the ancestral property. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has drawn my attention to the statement of his witness that the income was just sufficient for the expenses of the family and to the statement on behalf of the Plaintiffs that they had no idea of the income of the ancestral share. 5. The property gifted was acquired under two sale deeds, one dated the 7th of November, 1923, and the other dated the 23rd of March, 1924. 6. The history of the two acquisitions are as follows: On the 19th of June, 1922, Risal Singh borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000 from one Chandu Lal under a mortgage. 5. The property gifted was acquired under two sale deeds, one dated the 7th of November, 1923, and the other dated the 23rd of March, 1924. 6. The history of the two acquisitions are as follows: On the 19th of June, 1922, Risal Singh borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000 from one Chandu Lal under a mortgage. He had mortgaged 3 bighas, 4 biswas of village Khurranpur of the zamindari share which admittedly was ancestral property and also 27 bighas of property that stood in his name, but learned Counsel have not been able to give me any information as to the details how this property was acquired. Learned Counsel for the Respondent urges that this property must be deemed to be the self-acquired property of Risal Singh in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Learned Counsel for the Appellants, however, urges that it must be deemed to be the property of the joint family on the admitted facts that Risal Singh had no separate income of his own. 7. Out of the sum of Rs. 4,000 thus borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,500 was paid to Risal Singh in cash which he advanced as a loan to one Chaudhri Raj Singh along with two others, whose names are not material, who contributed between them a further sum of Rs. 5,000. Chaudhri Raj Singh executed a mortgage of his property on the 20th of June, 1922. He died and his widow was unable to pay off the mortgage an she ultimately on the 23rd of March, 1924, sold the property to Risal Singh for Rs. 9,000. Risal Singh, however, had not to pay anything in cash. A sum of Rs. 8,075 was left for payment of the bond dated the 20th of June, 1922, and Rs. 925 was left for payment to another creditor. Before I pass on to the second sale deed I may mention that Risal Singh was not able to pay off the mortgage dated the 19th of June, 1922, and Chandu Lal mortgagee brought a suit and obtained a decree for sale, and 3 bighas 4 biswas of zamindari properly which was ancestral property of the family has been sold and has thus been lost. That is the history of the sale deed dated the 22nd March, 1924, and in acquiring this property Risal Singh lost to the family the 3 bighas 4 biswas of the ancestral zamindari share. 8. The sale deed dated the 7th of November, 1923, was for a sum of Rs. 15,000, Risal Singh, however, had to pay nothing to the vendor and the entire sale consideration was left in his hands for payment to one Mangal Singh. 9. Out of the Rs. 15,000 Risal Singh paid only Rs. 4,800 to Mangal Singh and did not pay the balance. This sum of Rs. 4,800 was paid up thus. A sum of Rs. 3,000 was borrowed from one Khazan Singh on a mortgage dated the 8th of November 1923, but as the mortgage deed is not on the record it is not possible to say what property was included in the mortgage. He borrowed the balance of Rs. 1,800 by a mortgage for Rs. 7.000 dated the 9th of May, 1924 from Mangal Singh, Defendant No. 1. Only Rs. 1,900 was paid in cash out of the sum of Rs. 7,000 of the mortgage consideration and Risal Singh paid Rs. 1,800 to Mang Singh out of this Rs. 1,900 that he had received in cash. In this mortgage of the 9th of May, 1924, 3 bighas, 4 biswas of ancestral property and 91 bighas, 16 biswas of other property was mortgaged As regards the 91 bighas, 16 biswas, it is not known how the said property had been acquired, and learned Counsel for each side urges that the presumption i in his favour as to the ownership of the property. 10. It is admitted that Risal Singh paid up Rs. 2,040 towards this mortgage, but the balance does not seem to have been paid. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has drawn my attention to the fact that though 3 bighas, 4 biswas of ancestral property was included in the mortgage yet this property was not available to the mortgagee inasmuch as it was later sold under the prior mortgage of the 19th of June 1922 mentioned above, 11. These are all the facts that we know, and the question is whether this property should be deemed to be the property of the joint family or the self-acquired property of Risal Singh. These are all the facts that we know, and the question is whether this property should be deemed to be the property of the joint family or the self-acquired property of Risal Singh. So far as the property purchased under the sale deed dated the 23rd of Mirch, 1924 is concerned there can be no manner of doubt that the property is the joint family property. The entire sum that Risal Singh contributed towards the acquisition of the property was raised on the mortgage dated the 19th of June, 1922 and that mortgage in its turn included joint family property. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, however, urged that the principle of Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act should be made applicable and as 3 bighas, 4 biswas of ancestral property and 27 bighas of other property was included in the mortgage, therefore, there should be a proportionate distribution of the property between the joint family and Risal Singh. I do not think it is possible to apply Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act to a case of this kind. Risal Singh was the karta of the joint Hindu family. He had no other source of income apart from the family occupation that is agriculture. On these admitted facts which show that he had no separate income of his own R is not possible to hold that any property in his possession, must be deemed to be his self-acquired property. But even if these 27 bighas were his separate property, as the money was borrowed on the security of the joint family property and the joint family property was liable for every part of the debt, the whole of the amount thus borrowed should be deemed to have been borrowed on the security of the joint family property and any acquisition made out of that fund should be deemed to be joint family property. 12. As regards the other sale deed dated 7th of November, 1923, apart from the ancestral share of 3 bighas, 4 biswas, the other property inclded in the mortgage dated the 9th of May, 1924 was 91 bighas odd. On the admitted facts that the family had no othe source of incomo I am inclined to hold in favour of the Appellants that these 91 bighas should also be deemed to be joint family property. On the admitted facts that the family had no othe source of incomo I am inclined to hold in favour of the Appellants that these 91 bighas should also be deemed to be joint family property. In this view of the matter the entire sum borrowed on the 9th of May, 1924 must be deemed to be on security of the joint family property. 13. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has urged that only such property which has been acquired at the expense of the joint family could he deemed to be joint family property and the property which has been acquired without detriment to the joint family estate cannot be deemed to be joint family property, and he has relied on Colebrooke's Translation of Mitakshara, Chapter I, Section 4, p. 1. 1. To my mind when money is borrowed on the security of the joint family property it must be deemed that there has been a detriment to the family estate, and the money thus borrowed must be deemed to be available to the joint family and the property acquired with this money must be deemed to be joint family property. 14. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has urged that it was necessary for the Plaintiffs to prove that there was sufficient nucleus for the acquisition of the properties under the two sale-deeds and in the absence of such proof they are not entitled to claim the property as joint family property. To my mind, the question of nucleus raises only a question of presumption. If a joint Hindu family has sufficient nucleus with which a property can be acquired, then the presumption will be that the properties acquired by the Karta belong to the joint Hindu family and the burden will lie heavily on him to show that the property was his self-acquisition and purchased out of his separate funds, In the case before me all the facts so far as known to the parties have been already set out above. The Defendant had no separate funds of his own and the only funds available and the only credit available was that of the joint family and the joint family property. The Defendant had no separate funds of his own and the only funds available and the only credit available was that of the joint family and the joint family property. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has, however, urged that his client was only borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and if the Defendant managed to get some property through his clever deals there is no reason why that property should be deemed to be joint family property and not his salf-acquired property. It is true that if the head of a joint Hindu family or a member of the joint Hindu family acquires property entirely by his wits it may be his personal property, but in this particular case the facts are otherwise. It was not entirely through his wits that the property was acquired. Whatever sale consideration he paid he had to utilise the credit of the family and the family property for the purpose. 15. To my mind, therefore, on the facts admitted or proved it must be held that the entire property was joint family property and Risal Singh had no right to make a gift of the same in favour of Mangal Singh. 16. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts. 17. Leave to file Letters Patent Appeal is granted.