Rajamannar, C.J.- [The suit was by the widow of a coparcener who died in 1938 under the Hindu Woman’s Right to Property Act for a partition of the properties alleged to belong to the joint family and for incidental reliefs. On appeal from the preliminary decree the High Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the non-agricultural properties of the joint family. In pursuance of the preliminary decree as thus modified by the High Court there were further proceedings by way of division of immoveables and taking of accounts and a final decree was eventually passed. On appeal against that decree the defendants attacked certain items which formed part of the account taking. The judgment of the High Court dealt with those items seriatim. Surcharge item 5 alone is relevant for the purposes of this report and the portion of the judgment dealing with it is as follows: Surcharge item No. 5: The next item relates to insurance policies taken in the name of the members of the family. They are as follows: (1) a policy in the name of Venkataratnam for Rs. 6,000, (2) A policy in the name of Venkatappiah for Rs. 5,000, (3) and (4) Policies in the name of the first defendant for Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively, and (5) A policy in the name of the fourth defendant for Rs. 10,000. From the evidence it is clear that the premia in respect of these policies were paid from and out of the joint family funds. But it is also clear that the joint family accounts specify definitely the amount of the premia as relating to the policy effected by this or that coparcener. There seems to have been a separate khata in which the amounts paid towards the premia for the several policies were separately entered. The first question which falls for decision as regards the amounts of these policies is, are the amounts of the policies joint property or do they form the separate property of the individual coparceners concerned. There appears to be little direct authority on the question. From a common-sense point of view it is obvious that when one of the coparceners insures his life he intends the benefit of the policy for his heirs and not for the other coparceners. There appears to be little direct authority on the question. From a common-sense point of view it is obvious that when one of the coparceners insures his life he intends the benefit of the policy for his heirs and not for the other coparceners. The presumption, therefore, would be that the profit, if any, made by means of the policy would not be joint family asset. The utmost that the other coparceners in equity can claim is that the assured should be debited with the premia which have been paid from joint family funds. In support of the contention that the amounts of the policy should be treated as joint family property if the premia were paid from joint family funds, learned counsel cited two decisions of this Court. In Oriental Government Security Life Assurance, Limited v. Vanteddu1, four sons of one Nagiah filed a suit against an insurance company to recover the amount alleged to be due to them on a life insurance policy executed by the company in favour of the said Nagiah. The policy was intended for the benefit of Nagiah’s wife and children. He died in 1902 leaving four sons and two daughters. The four sons claimed to be entitled to the amount to the exclusion of the two daughters of Nagiah. The company repudiated their exclusive claim on the ground that all the children of Nagiah including the daughters were entitled to the amount. It was held that the sons were entitled to the policy amount. The District Judge held that the premia paid for the policy came out of the joint family property of Nagiah and his sons and that the sons alone were entitled to the amount. This finding was not impeached before this Court and the plaintiffs’ (sons’) title to recover the whole amount was admitted. The learned Judges observed that there could be no doubt that this view was correct. This is all that there is in this decision bearing on the point, and we fail to see what principle we could deduce from it which would govern the present case. Obviously whether the policy was joint family property or the separate property of Nagiah, the only persons who would become entitled to it in law would be the sons and they were the plaintiffs in the suit and their title was admitted. Obviously whether the policy was joint family property or the separate property of Nagiah, the only persons who would become entitled to it in law would be the sons and they were the plaintiffs in the suit and their title was admitted. There was no conflict between persons claiming it as joint family property and persons claiming it as the separate property of Nagiah. The decision in Srinivasa Iyengar v. Thiruvengadath Aiyangar2, does not take us any further. In that case the plaintiff and the first defendant were step-brothers and the sons of one Doraiswami Aiyangar who had taken out a policy of assurance. The premia for the policy were paid out of funds belonging to the whole family. It was held that both the plaintiff and the first defendant were entitled to shares in the amount recovered from the insurance company. Here again the same result would have followed if the policy amount had been treated as the separate property of Doraiswami Aiyangar. In these two cases it may be observed that the assured was the manager of the joint family and the other coparceners were all minors. It is not clear whether there were separate debits as against the manager, nor was there any other evidence to show that the assured intended to treat the policy as his own individual asset. These two cases were cited in a later case in Bengal Insurance and Real Properly Co., Ltd. v. Velayammal1. Though that decision was based on different facts, the following observations are apposite: “The cases cited, Oriental Government Security Life Assurance, Limited v. Vanteddu2 and Srinivasa Ayyangar v. Thiruvengadath Ayyangar3, leave the question of a manager’s power to insure his life, paying the premium from the family money for the benefit of some members only of the joint family, in some uncertainty.....The question then is whether any profit made out of money paid to a member of a joint family by the manager for his personal use, which he is free to spend as soon as he receives it, must, because he chooses to invest it for some purpose which is clearly not intended to be for the benefit of the family, be deemed to be a family acquisition. A profit made by the member of a joint family from the enjoyment of joint property without detriment to it is his separate self-acquired property; Lachmeswar Singh v. Manowar Hossein4. When money is given to a member of a family by the manager from family funds to be spent by him for his personal use, it seems to us that any profit made by him can hardly be said to be in detriment of the joint property”. As early as Balamba v. Krishnayya5, Sankaran Nair, J., held that a presumption, would arise where an assured is shown to have money available from private as well as from joint family sources that the premia for a policy on his life would be paid from the man’s own money. This is because an insurance is prima facie intended for the benefit of the person taking out the policy. We think that the nature and incidents of a policy of life insurace taken out by a member of the joint family are well brought out in the following passage in Sugandhabi v. Desarbhai6. “A policy of life insurance is usually a personal contract between the person who is called the assured and the insurance company. It is true no doubt that an insurance policy could be taken out for the benefit of the joint family, but the presumption would be against that as a rule and in my opinion it would have to be proved that the policy was taken out with that intention and that the premia were paid out of joint family funds. In the absence of any proof to that effect, I am of opinion that the correct presumption is that the policy was taken out as a personal policy for the benefit of the personal heirs of the assured.” Of course, in such cases the assured must be debited with the premia paid by him or on his behalf from and out of the joint family funds. This is what: was done in Manharanlal v. Jagjivanlal7, and by a Bench of this Court in A.S. No. 43 of 1948. This is what: was done in Manharanlal v. Jagjivanlal7, and by a Bench of this Court in A.S. No. 43 of 1948. In our opinion, having regard to modern social conditions and the growth of individual conciousness in marked contrast to the more corporate outlook of an earlier day, the general presumptiom must be that when one of the members of a joint family insures his life, the amount of the policy belongs to the assured as his separate property and does not become a joint family asset. No doubt, if there is clear indication that the member did not intend to treat it as his separate asset, the position would be different. In a case where each of the several members of the family has taken a policy in his name the presumption becomes stronger that the policies were not part of the joint family assets. The premia must be treated as amounts drawn by the individual members and they must be debited with those amounts. The learned trial Judge has practically adopted this course except in the case of the amount of Rs. 5,000 paid in respect of Venkatappiah’s insurance policy which he has held to be a joint family asset. We think that logically all the policies should be treated in the same way. The respective amounts will be treated as the separate property of the respective assured and they would be debited with the amounts of premia paid towards their policies. The statement, Exhibit CCCC-4, shows the amounts of premia paid in respect of the policies. Each of the members will be debited with the respective amount. As Venkataratnam’s policy was assigned in favour of the first defendant, the first defendent must be debited with the premia paid in respect of this policy. The learned Judge has left open the claim to the policy taken in the name of the fourth defendant to be decided in a separate suit. That direction will stand. There is, however, one matter which needs to be cleared. The plaintiff would be certainly entitled to a fourth share of the premium amounts paid in respect of Venkataratnam’s policy which was assigned to the first defendant. But this fact was apparently overlooked by the learned Judge who has not declared the plaintiff’s right to it. [Then the other items are dealt with]. The plaintiff would be certainly entitled to a fourth share of the premium amounts paid in respect of Venkataratnam’s policy which was assigned to the first defendant. But this fact was apparently overlooked by the learned Judge who has not declared the plaintiff’s right to it. [Then the other items are dealt with]. * * * * * * * R.M. ----- Decree modified.