Ramachandra Ayyar, C. J.- This appeal arises out of the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in a suit instituted by Mrs. Padmini Chandrasekharan for a declaration that the business conducted in the name of Selvarajulu Chetty, her father, which later was transformed to Selvarajulu Chetty & Co., belonged exclusively to her as his sole heir and for certain allied and incidental reliefs. The business was that of Stevedore and ship chandler. Selvarajulu Chetty was about twenty-four years old when he started the business at Pondicherry in the year 1926. The family had its home at Kurichikuppam near Pondicherry. Shortly thereafter, an office for the business was opened at Madras with a view to take up contracts at the Madras Harbour for handling cargoes. Selvarajulu was on all accounts a man of considerable initiative and enterprise with a flair for making friendships with foreign businessmen. His business naturally gained momentum and had established itself in the course of the next few years at various centres, Nagapattinam, Cuddalore, Masulipatam, Kakinada, Visakhapat nam and Bhimlipatam. Success in business naturally led Selvarajulu to a prominent place in society as well as to lead him to take part in the politics of the French Settlements in India. The latter activity brought his life to an untimely end, as he was shot dead on 16th December, 1938, presumably by a political miscreant. It was only a month earlier that Selvarajulu’s wife had died of a short illness. The plaintiff Padmini, their only child, was eleven years old when she was orphaned. Selvarajulu at the time of his death was a member of a Hindu joint family consisting of himself, his younger brother Krishnaraj and paternal uncle Dakshina-murthi Chetty. The family had an aptitude for business. But several of its members who tried their hands at business did not, however, succeed. Most of them did not live long. We shall immediately refer to the fortunes of the family, in so far as it will be relevant for the disposal of the main question involved in the present appeal, namely, whether the extensive business conducted by Selvarajulu was his separate business or one conducted in his name by the joint family of which he was a member. We shall immediately refer to the fortunes of the family, in so far as it will be relevant for the disposal of the main question involved in the present appeal, namely, whether the extensive business conducted by Selvarajulu was his separate business or one conducted in his name by the joint family of which he was a member. The plaintiff’s original case was that there was a division in status between the several branches of the family in the year 1918 and consequently, the business which was started by her father eight years later must have been his individual business. On the other hand the case for the contesting defendants was that the business of stevedoring was an ancestral business handed down to Selvarajulu from the time of his grandfather Chinnathambi Chetti. Both these extreme contentions were not even attempted to be proved. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., found that although Chinnathambi Chetty and his sons were undivided, the family did not have much property nor were they engaged in any business during his lifetime. The learned Judge further found that there had been no division between the various members of the family in the year 1918 as alleged by the plaintiff. Therefore, at the time when Selvarajulu started his business and up to the moment of his death, he was and continued to be a member of an undivided Hindu family along with his brother and his paternal uncle. Neither side has challenged the correctness of these findings in this appeal. It will be noticed that Selvarajulu was but a junior member of the family when he started his business. There can therefore be no presumption that the business conducted by him in his own name was not his separate business but a joint family one. The true position in law has been thus stated in paragraph 295-A of Mayne’s Hindu Law (eleventh edition): “ Whether in the case of a joint family possessed of some joint property, there is or is no a presumption that any property in the hands of an individual member is not his separate individual property but joint property, no such presumption can be applied to a business. Unless it can be shown that the business in the hands of a coparcener grew up from joint family property, or that the earnings were blended with joint family estate, they remain free and separate. Unless it can be shown that the business in the hands of a coparcener grew up from joint family property, or that the earnings were blended with joint family estate, they remain free and separate. The question whether the business was begun or carried on with the assistance of joint family property or as a family business is a question of fact upon which the initial burden of proof lies upon those who claim a share in the business.” We may as well state at this stage that it is not the case of the defendants that the business, though in origin the separate business of Selvarajulu, was later blended with the joint family estate. Though the original case for the defendants was that Selvarajulu’s business was but a continuation of that carried on by his ancestors, there was, however, a change during trial. It was said that his business was started out of joint family funds and carried on by all of the members. To understand that plea, and indeed to better appreciate the circumstances which have led up to this litigation, it will be useful to set out the genealogy of the family first, restricting it to such of those persons whose name would have to be referred to hereafter. Ratnavelu, the paternal uncle of Selvarajulu, died in the year 1907. Two years later, his three brothers and his son Dorairaj started a business under the name of Rathnavelu Bros., as exporters, ship-chandlers, stevedores, etc. Later, Sam Joseph, a native of Ceylon, was taken in employment as the accountant of the firm. He has given evidence in the case as C.W. 1. Whether it was due to the First World War or to other causes, the business sustained heavy loss and it practically stopped by the year 1915. The services of Sam Joseph were terminated two years later and he went back to Colombo. Vijayarangam, one of the brothers, appears to have then embarked on a separate business of his own. That venture was a failure. His private life too left every thing to be desired. The family thereafter entered into an arrangement on 4th February, 1918, evidenced by Exhibit P-1 between Vijayarangam on the one side, Nandagopal, Dakshinamurthi and Dorairaj on the other. Vijayarangam, one of the brothers, appears to have then embarked on a separate business of his own. That venture was a failure. His private life too left every thing to be desired. The family thereafter entered into an arrangement on 4th February, 1918, evidenced by Exhibit P-1 between Vijayarangam on the one side, Nandagopal, Dakshinamurthi and Dorairaj on the other. The relevant portions of that agreement are these: " (1) For five years from to-day, in addition to the properties so far in the possession of the four of us, the articles in the house in Puduvaiperumal Koil street, which is in the possession of Vijayarangam Chettiar, the other properties shall continue to be in the possession of other persons. (2) From this day onwards Vijayarangam Chettiar shall carry on business separately. Similarly, each of the rest of the individuals shall alone be entitled to or responsible for the profits or loss that each may get or sustain and each alone shall be liable for the debt that may be incurred by each of them. Each shall receive separately the income earned by each. (3) If after the expiry of five years, if so desired, the properties shall be divided in accordance with law. (4) During the said period of five years, the first three of us shall pay the other sharer of us i.e., Vijayarangam Chettiar, out of the one-fourth share of the paddy from the wet lands and also Rs. 50 per month and the two boats Nos. 45 and 51 and all other allied articles shall be entrusted to Vijayarangam Chettiar within one and a half months from this date. (5) The aforesaid Vijayarangam Chettiar has agreed not to demand partition from the others, in the common income for the said period of five years. (6) If within the period of the said five years, if any creditor of any of us, in respect of the debt incurred individually, proceeds against the common properties, the said debtor in addition to indemnifying the other out of his share, shall also be liable to pay damages for loss of reputation in a sum of Rs. 15,000. The learned Judge has found that this arrangement was not sham but one intended to be acted upon and in fact it was acted upon by the parties. That finding has; not been challenged before us. 15,000. The learned Judge has found that this arrangement was not sham but one intended to be acted upon and in fact it was acted upon by the parties. That finding has; not been challenged before us. Although the agreement purports to be between Vijayarangam on the one side, and Nandagopal, Dakshinamurthi and Dorairaj on the other, it is clear that, so far as the starting of business by any individual member was concerned, the terms of the agreement were to bind each one of them. The parties, no doubt, contemplated that they should continue to live together as members of a joint Hindu family. But at the same time, it will be clear from the terms of the agreement that the family as such did not want to take the risks of a business which any member thereof might commence. Past experience must certainly have dictated that the loss of an individual member in any business that he might start must be confined to him. That the apprehension of the family, as disclosed by the agreement, was more than well founded is shown by the fact that Nandagopal too who started his separate business thereafter did not fare well. Nandagopal started his separate business in the year 1921 by borrowing a sum of Rs. 5,000 from his brother-in-law — vide Exhibit P-68. In the following year he died an indebted businessman having sustained loss in his venture. That this; business was the separate business of Nandagopal has been spoken to by Sami Joseph. It is also in evidence that both Dorairaj as well as Dakshinamurthi had their separate businesses. The former was a Dubash of Ralli Brothers till the date of his death in the year 1925. Dakshinamurthi was struck with paralysis in the year 1914 and till the end of his life he remained a cripple. But that did not, however, prevent him from doing business. Indeed he appears to have had a number of businesses. He was attending to stevedoring work for the Clan Line Steamers at Pondicherry. He was also doing business in importing and selling diamonds and entering into contracts. In the year 1930 he registered himself with the Tribunal of Commerce at Pondicherry as acting in his own name for the business concern under the name of Dakshinamurthi Chettiar, Contractor and Broker. This business had been in existence since the year 1922. He was also doing business in importing and selling diamonds and entering into contracts. In the year 1930 he registered himself with the Tribunal of Commerce at Pondicherry as acting in his own name for the business concern under the name of Dakshinamurthi Chettiar, Contractor and Broker. This business had been in existence since the year 1922. It is in evidence that Selvarajulu was the most accomplished of all the members of the family in the matter of dealing with business people. He was proficient in French and English. Four years after his father’s death, he started a business in his own name, first at Pondicherry and later at other places Sam Joseph, the tried and trusted accountant of the family, joined Selvarajulu’s business in the year 1929 as the Manager of the Madras office. The business was very prosperous. As we shall show presently there is no evidence in the case to show that the joint family contributed any capital to Selvarajulu’s business. But that some capital would be necessary for stevedores business cannot admit of any doubt There is enough material in the evidence to show that there were accounts of the business at Pondicherry and Madras during the relevant period. These accounts would undoubtedly show whether any amounts, or as has been suggested any boats belonging to the family, were given over to him to help him in his business. The learned Judge has found that accounts were available for the relevant period, but they have been suppressed by the contesting defendants. One can reasonably presume, from such a conduct on their part that if produced those accounts would not support their case that family funds or property were utilised for the business of Selvarajulu. We shall, however, refer to this matter later in greater detail. Unlike the other members of the family, Krishnaraj had no business of his own. It is the plaintiff’s case that he was sickly but that has been denied by the defendants. Krishnaraj died in the year 1943. Selvarajulu’s sister Jayalakshmi was married to Somasundaram Chetty, first defendant to the suit. That was in the year 1918. Unlike the other members of the family, Krishnaraj had no business of his own. It is the plaintiff’s case that he was sickly but that has been denied by the defendants. Krishnaraj died in the year 1943. Selvarajulu’s sister Jayalakshmi was married to Somasundaram Chetty, first defendant to the suit. That was in the year 1918. Somasundaram started a business in the name of his wife (Jayalakshmi) at Madras There is evidence that large sums of money were advanced by Selvarajulu himself out of his business funds to Jayalakshmi & Co., and the undischarged liability of the latter to the former was about Rupees one lakh and thirty-six thousand. The business, however, did not prosper and it was closed some time during the year 1944. But Somasundaram had other support. Kuppammal, the wife of Dakshinamurthi, was his cousin She was greatly interested in his advancement. Naturally, he was able easily to ingratiate himself into the affections of Dakshinamurthi another link with the family was forged when he gave the elder of his two daughters, Anusuya (third defendant) in marriage to her maternal uncle Krishnaraj. The second daughter was married to Ramanathan, a near relative of Kuppammal. The position of Somasundaram in the family was thus secure. The family had a common mess at Kurichikuppam, the ancestral house which was being improved from time to time. There was also a residence at Purasawalkam in Madras, where a bungalow had been taken on lease. Selvarajulu, during his lifetime, was undoubtedly in exclusive control of the various branches of his business. He had insured his life for the sum of one lakh of rupees in various insurance companies. The policies of insurance bore no endorsements of assignment and under the terms thereof, they would be payable, on the death of the assured, to his legal representatives. Immediately after the death of Selvarajulu, Dakshinamurthi and Krishnaraj took over the business, claiming that they had succeeded to the business earned on by the deceased according to Hindu Law by survivorship. They also collected the amounts due from the banks as well as under the various insurance policies standing in the name of Selvarajulu. Immediately after the death of Selvarajulu, Dakshinamurthi and Krishnaraj took over the business, claiming that they had succeeded to the business earned on by the deceased according to Hindu Law by survivorship. They also collected the amounts due from the banks as well as under the various insurance policies standing in the name of Selvarajulu. There were amounts due to Selvarajulu from the Imperial Bank of India as well as from the Indo-China Bank at Pondicherry There were other amounts due to the deceased from the post office, and public and private institutions Dakshinamurthi was able to obtain a succession certificate on 21st December 1938, within five days of the death of Selvaraju, from the French authorities. The existence of the minor daughter, Padmini, was suppressed in the application for the certificate. There was also an application in this Court for the issue of a succession certificate in respect of the insurance amounts due to the deceased as well as the amounts due from the Chartered Bank of India etc. There again, the existence of the minor daughter of the deceased was not brought to the notice of the Court This omission must without doubt have been deliberate. But at the same time, it must be mentioned that Dakshinamurthi had considerable affection for the plaintiff Padmini, who was about eleven years when her parents died. Immediately on her father’s death, Dakshinamurthi and his wife Kuppammal took charge of the plaintiff and brought her up. The learned Judge has observed: “ The plaintiff was thus the only child in the family which any male member of the family had it is therefore not surprising that the plaintiff was treated with great affection. It is stated in the evidence on both sides and there is no contradiction about it, that Dakshinamurthi was particularly fond of this child and probably treated her as if she were his own child as was just natural.” Plaintiff herself has acknowledged the great affection that Dakshinamurthi always had for her. Five years after the plaintiff reached the age of majority, Dakshinamurthi converted the business continued in the name of Selvarajulu Chetty as a partnership concern. Out of one hundred shares therein, he took for himself fifty-one shares, Somasundaram (first defendant) was given twenty-one shares. Padmini (plaintiff) twenty shares, Ramanathan (fourth defendant) four shares and one Ramachandran, the remaining four shares. Five years after the plaintiff reached the age of majority, Dakshinamurthi converted the business continued in the name of Selvarajulu Chetty as a partnership concern. Out of one hundred shares therein, he took for himself fifty-one shares, Somasundaram (first defendant) was given twenty-one shares. Padmini (plaintiff) twenty shares, Ramanathan (fourth defendant) four shares and one Ramachandran, the remaining four shares. The partnership agreement is evidenced by Exhibit P-8, dated 27th October, 1948. It was just a few months earlier that the plaintiff was married. By a further document, dated 26th March, 1951, (Exhibit D-27), it was agreed between the partners that the partnership was not to be dissolved by the death of any partner. This clause was presumably added to the pre-existing agreement as Dakshinamurthi was then very advanced in age and his end was anticipated. To both those documents the plaintiff had affixed her signature. Dakshinamurthi died on 26th June, Even before the dead body of Dakshinamurthi was removed, disputes started between the plaintiff on the one hand and Somasundaram and Kuppammal on the other. The controversy then was, as to who should perform the funeral ceremonies of the deceased. Padmini asserted her right, but Somasundaram wanted to do them himself. As a result of a mediation by persons interested in the family a settlement was come to by which Somasundaram agreed to treat the plaintiff properly if the latter were to allow him - and which she did - to perform the funeral ceremonies. This settlement was not, however, an enduring one. An inventory was then taken of the movables of the family in the house at Kurichikuppam There was also a settlement by which the plaintiff was allowed to carry on the business of Selvarajulu Chetty at Pondicherry, till then carried by Dakshinamurthi as the sole proprietrix. Somasundaram, who appears to have had mental reservation even at the time when he solemnly agreed to treat the plaintiff properly gave no little trouble to her while she took up the Pondicherry business, which was in the name of her father. But one Mr. Salzani, the agent in India of Messagerie Maritimes, took interest in her and he not merely secured for her the agency from that company but also made them lend to her a sum of Rupees thirty-two thousand to enable her to carry on the stevedoring business. Somasundaram first tried to discredit Mr. But one Mr. Salzani, the agent in India of Messagerie Maritimes, took interest in her and he not merely secured for her the agency from that company but also made them lend to her a sum of Rupees thirty-two thousand to enable her to carry on the stevedoring business. Somasundaram first tried to discredit Mr. Salzani by complaining against him to his principals Failing in that attempt, he tried to raise trouble by inducing the boat owners and others to refuse to co-operate with the plaintiff. In December, 1951, an arrangement was come to between Padmini on the one hand and Somasundaram and Kuppammal on the other, so far as the properties situate at Pondicherry were concerned. Soon after the death of Selvarajulu, Dakshinamurthi had purchased a property in the Beach Road at Pondicherry. A new residential mansion was built on that property and named Selva Mansions. In front of the property a statue of Selvarajulu had also been installed. During the lifetime of Dakshinamurthi, he had control over that property. But as we said, so long as he was alive Padmini had no real reason for complaint. Under the arrangement referred to just now, Padmini was given Selva Mansions. Sam Joseph, who had throughout rendered loyal service in the business started by Selvarajulu became dissatisfied with the way in which Padmini was treated by Somasundaram. During the months of July and August, 1951, he conveyed information to Padmini about two matters: (i) that the business done in the name of her father was during his lifetime his own and that he would be entitled to it as his heir and (ii) that her father had insured his life for a considerable sum of money and that she would be entitled to recover these moneys which had been collected by Dakshinamurthi and Krishnaraj. Sam Joseph further appears to have given her some documents, with a view to assist her in making out a claim in respect of the business and the insurance moneys as against Somasundaram. Padmini by then had the advice of her husband and her father-in-law. After getting information from Sam Joseph they presumably advised the plaintiff not to accept the position as a partner of Selvarajulu Chetty and Company, but to insist upon her rights as the sole proprietrix of the concern. Padmini by then had the advice of her husband and her father-in-law. After getting information from Sam Joseph they presumably advised the plaintiff not to accept the position as a partner of Selvarajulu Chetty and Company, but to insist upon her rights as the sole proprietrix of the concern. Selvarajulu Chetty and Company, which was till then carried on as partnership under the deed of 27th October, 1948, had been registered under section 26-A of the Income-tax Act. When Dakshinamurthy died, an application had to be made for registering it afresh for the period between 26th June, 1951, the date of his death, and 31st March, 1952, the end of the year of account. Somasundaram, therefore, requested the plaintiff to sign the necessary forms, admitting the position that she was a partner, as otherwise the incidence of taxation would be heavy. Sam Joseph, who was serving the company, considered the request to be proper and advised the plaintiff to sign the forms. But Padmini said that she would do so if she were allowed access to the account books of her father’s business. Somasundaram did not agree, with the result that Padmini ultimately refused to sign the necessary documents for registering the firm with the Income-tax authorities. This not merely accentuated the feelings between the parties, but it also estranged Sam Joseph from Padmini, towards whom he had till then feelings of affection and also a feeling that she had been unjustly treated by her paternal relations. The latter, thereafter, took the side of his de facto employer Somasundaram. It was after this that in November, 1952 the plaintiff brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for relief in regard to what she alleged was, her father’s business, and for recovery of the insurance moneys and of certain jewels. During the pendency of the suit, Kuppammal died in January, 1958, leaving a will substantially bequeathing all her properties to Somasundaram. The learned Judge, on a detailed consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the account books of the business of Selvarajulu Chetty, during the period when the plaintiff’s fa her was conducting the same, were with the defendants and that they were suppressing the same. The learned Judge, on a detailed consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the account books of the business of Selvarajulu Chetty, during the period when the plaintiff’s fa her was conducting the same, were with the defendants and that they were suppressing the same. He also came to the conclusion that, notwithstanding that suppression, there was other evidence in the case which justified the inference that the business conducted by Selvarajulu Chetty was a joint family business, which, on his death, survived to his coparceners, namely Krishnaraj and Dakshinamurthy, and that the only right which the plaintiff could claim in regard to the business of Selvarajulu Chetty at Madras, would be as a partner of the firm which came into existence as a result of the partnership deed dated 27th October, 1948. An account of the business was directed to be taken on that basis from the date of suit with an injunction restraining the defendants 1, 3 and 4 from carrying on the business. Padmini has filed this appeal (Original Side Appeal No. 49 of 1960), claiming that she would be entitled to an account on the footing that she was solely entitled to the business commenced by her father. The learned Judge has also passed a decree against defendants 1, 3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rupees, 1,04,423 with subsequent interest out of the estate of Krishnaraj and Dakshmamurthi in their hands, towards insurance moneys collected by them. There was also a direction to the first defendant to return to the plaintiff the jewels mentioned in the decree. Defendants 1 3 and 4 have filed Original Side Appeal No. 60 of 1959 against this part of the decree The appeal was heard simultaneously with this appeal but a separate judgment is being delivered today on that appeal. During the pendency of the appeals Somasundaram died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The learned Judge had to consider the question whether Padmini would be estopped from claiming the business of her father as hers, by reason of her conduct in accepting the partnership agreement, dated 27th October, 1948. During the pendency of the appeals Somasundaram died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The learned Judge had to consider the question whether Padmini would be estopped from claiming the business of her father as hers, by reason of her conduct in accepting the partnership agreement, dated 27th October, 1948. He observed: “If the plaintiff had established (a) that the business of Selvarajulu Chetti was her father’s and that she was induced to enter into partnership agreement of 27th October, 1948, on the misrepresentation by Dakshinamurthi that the business belonged to the joint family in which she had no interest, there could be no question of estoppel by reason merely of her joining the partnership in October, 1978. If, on the other hand, as I have held, the business was a joint family business, the representations by Dakshinamurthi - express or implied - were true and therefore, apart from any question of estoppel, she would be entitled only to the rights conferred on her by the partnership agreement.” In the course of her evidence the plaintiff has stated that at the time when the partnership agreement of 1948 was given to her for her signature by Dakshinamurthi she particularly asked the latter about the nature of the business, when he replied: “ You happened to be a girl. Your father’s business has come down to me. If you happened to be a boy it would have come to you. Out of free will I will give you some share.” Having regard to the relationship that existed between Padmini and Daskhinamurthi, she could not have then suspected that the latter was speaking anything but the truth. We, therefore, agree with the learned Judge that Padmini must have signed the partnership deed on the assurance given by Dakshinamurthi in regard to the character of the business, namely, that it was a joint family business which she could not and did not inherit. If it were to be proved by the other evidence in the case that the business was in fact the separate business of Selvarajulu, then this representation of Dakshinamurthi must be regarded as false and any assent of Padmini to the partnership secured, on the basis of such a representation, must be held to be not binding on her. If it were to be proved by the other evidence in the case that the business was in fact the separate business of Selvarajulu, then this representation of Dakshinamurthi must be regarded as false and any assent of Padmini to the partnership secured, on the basis of such a representation, must be held to be not binding on her. The principal point for consideration in this appeal, therefore, is whether the business commenced by Selvarajulu Chetty in the year 1926 in his name, was his separate business or the joint family business? It is now well-settled that there is no presumption that a business carried on by a member of a Hindu Coparcenary is joint family business. As has been observed by Venkatarama Ayyar, J., in Chattanatha Karayalar v. Ramachandra Ayyar and another1, under the Hindu Law, there is no presumption that a business standing in the name of any member is a joint family one, even when that member is the manager of the family ; it would make no difference in this respect even if the manager happens to be the father of the coparceners. In Annamalai Chetti v Subramanian Chetti2, Lord Buckmaster, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council observed that a member of a joint undivided family could make separate acquisition of property for his own benefit, and unless it was shown that his business grew from joint property, or that the earnings were blended with joint family estate they would be free and separate, and that the onus of proving that any particular item of property was joint would primarily rest upon the person setting up a case of its joint family character. The question was again considered by the Privy Council in Bhuru Mal v. Jaganath3, where Sir George Rankin said: “. . . special considerations apply to the question whether or not a business belongs to the family or to the individual member who carries it on. If it be a joint family business, then all the members of the family are liable for its debts upon the terms and to the extent laid down by the Hindu Law. . . special considerations apply to the question whether or not a business belongs to the family or to the individual member who carries it on. If it be a joint family business, then all the members of the family are liable for its debts upon the terms and to the extent laid down by the Hindu Law. Whether or not it can be said that if a joint family is possessed of some joint property, there is a presumption that any property in the hands of an individual member is not his separate individual property but joint property, no such presumption can be applied to a business” Whether a business standing in the name of a member of a family belongs to the family itself, in the sense that it was begun and carried on with the assistance of joint family property, or whether it is the separate one of a member will be a question of fact, the burden of proof, being on the person who claims a share in the business. It will be competent for such a person to show the joint family character of the business by proving that the family contributed to the commoncement or carrying on of the business, or that the business itself was treated by the member, in whose name it was standing, as part of the joint family property. Mr D Narasaraju, the learned Advocate-General or Andhra Pradesh, appearing for the defendants invited our attention to the early case in Rampershad Tewary v. S. Doss and others1, as supporting a contrary view as to the burden of proof in such cases. In that case the evidence fell far short of proof that the ancestral property contributed in any material degree to the acquisition of funds utilised in the trade but there was evidence that the five brothers in the family were actively engaged in the management of a branch of the business. In a partition arrangement subsequently entered into between them, it was accepted that the branches were integrally connected with the main business. The Privy Council came to the conclusion that the gains of the business being made by the joint exertions, would be really joint property of the family so long as it was undivided and would be partible as such. The Privy Council came to the conclusion that the gains of the business being made by the joint exertions, would be really joint property of the family so long as it was undivided and would be partible as such. This decision if at all falls in the second category of cases we have mentioned above, namely, where the separate business of a member is treated by that member as joint family business. The case can also be said to be one of a joint business. The case in Vasudeva Rao v. Sakharam Rao2, was also one where the members of a family jointly traded in the name of one among them. That was also the case in the next cases relied on behalf of the defendants, Manilal v. Bai Sushila3where it was held that where in a joint family the sons actively helped their father in carrying on the business started by the latter, without any remuneration for the work done by them, the business should be regarded as the joint family business. Mr Narasaraju argued that the business of stevedores would require capital, whether it be for payment of wages of the labourers or for deposit with the steamer companies, and that the family must have contributed out of its funds for those purposes. It was further said that as the family had been doing a like business, ft was more than likely that the boats owned by the joint family were used for the purpose of Selvarajulu’s business. In support of the argument reference was made to the recital in Exhibit P-1, which referred to the handing over of two boats belonging to the family to Vijayarangam. There can be little doubt that the business of stevedores would require finance, even at its commencement But it cannot be assumed that such finance must have been necessarily advanced by the family. Selvarajulu might have raised monies on loan as his father did on a similar occasion. We shall presently consider the question whether the family did advance any moneys for the starting of the business, or help him by providing him with boats. There is no evidence in the present case that the family owned boats and such boats were given to Selvarajulu for the purpose of his business. We shall presently consider the question whether the family did advance any moneys for the starting of the business, or help him by providing him with boats. There is no evidence in the present case that the family owned boats and such boats were given to Selvarajulu for the purpose of his business. The learned Judge has found that on the eve of the starting of the stevedore business by Selvarajulu, the family was joint, as indeed it continued to be till the last of its male members died, that it was then only moderately prosperous and that though the three members of the family, Nandagopal, Dakshinamurthi and Dorairaj, had each a business in their respective names, the income therefrom must have been pooled together for the benefit of the family. It must, however, be remembered that Nandagopal’s business venture was a failure. The family had to celebrate the marriages of its younger members and they must have absorbed considerable sums of money ; very little surplus must have been available with the family. Indeed there is no evidence in the case to show that there was sufficient surplus available to enable substantial advances being made to Selvarajulu’s business. Dakshinamurthi and Dorairaj were having their separate businesses. Even if one were to assume that those businesses were prosperous ones, no attempt has been made to show that after meeting the expenses of the family, there was sufficient amount left for the family to advance moneys to Selvarajulu. It is no doubt true, that the chief business that the several members of the family took up, was in connection with the supply of boats or labour to steamers which called at Pondicherry Port. But the business in stevedoring can be done with the help of hired boats ; it may also be that the person carrying on the business owns some boats. There is, as we said, evidence in this. case that in the year 1918 two boats were given to Vijayarangam. But what happened to them, whether Dakshinamurthi utilised them for his own business after Vijayarangam’s death or how many boats were owned by the family or by one or other of its members, whether by any boats were at all given to Selvarajulu as nucleus to help him in the business, has not been brought out in the evidence. But what happened to them, whether Dakshinamurthi utilised them for his own business after Vijayarangam’s death or how many boats were owned by the family or by one or other of its members, whether by any boats were at all given to Selvarajulu as nucleus to help him in the business, has not been brought out in the evidence. The only persons who could have given any valuable evidence on that matter are Somasundara, who has been examined as D.W. 2, and Sam Joseph, C.W. 1. About the former, the learned Judge observed: “ It is a matter for regret that even from the stage of his examination-in-chief his answers were so irresponsible that he wrote himself down as unworthly of credit. His testimony is so full of prevarication and obviously untrue answers that I can place no reliance on any portion of his evidence except on some admission wrung out of him.” Sam Joseph, though he at one time tried to help Padmini, undoubtedly revealed an inclination to support completely his employer the first defendant. The probative value of his evidence cannot, therefore, be put high. Even apart from that consideration, obscurity exists in the evidence as regards any contribution by the family towards the capital of Selvarajulu’s business. Further their is practically no evidence on the question as to whether any help that was given to Selvarajulu was intended for his separate use. At the family arrangement of 1918, we have shown that Vijayarangam was given two boats, so that he can carry on his separate business. Therefore, the mere fact that some monetary or other help was given to a member of the family for starting his business, cannot necessarily mean that it was a contribution made to the detriment of the family, so as to make the business subsequently started by the individual member, a joint family business. It is not an inflexible rule of Hindu Law that a profit made by a member of a joint family from the enjoyment of joint property, but without detriment to the joint family, will not be his separate property. It is not an inflexible rule of Hindu Law that a profit made by a member of a joint family from the enjoyment of joint property, but without detriment to the joint family, will not be his separate property. For example, when money is given to a member of a family by the manager from the family funds to be spent by him for his own personal use, any profit made by him by the use of that money can be regarded as his own, because there could be no detriment to the family estate ; see Lachmeswar Singh v. Manowar Hossein1, and Bengal Insurance and Real Property Co., Ltd. v. Velayammal2. Again, it may be possible that a family advances money to a member thereof for starting a business by way of loan. In Rammayya v. Kolanda3, it was held that where the joint family, acting through the manager, makes an allotment of property to its member in order to enable him to maintain himself, that member would not be accountable for the income of the property so allotted and that any acquisitions made by him from out of the savings of income of such property-would be his separate property. In Manickam Chetty v. Kamalam4, a concern was. carried on with coparcenary funds and the share of the individual coparcenar,. in whose name the business was run, was debited with the sums given by the family. It was held that that fact might show an intention on the part of the family that the business should belong to the individual member. There is practically very little acceptable evidence in the present case whether any contribution - in the shape of money or boats - was made by the family to the business started by Selvarajulu in the year 1926. It can be said that there is nothing to show whether such moneys as might have been advanced by the family, were given only as loans to be repaid later by Selvarajulu. Learned Counsel for the defendants relied strongly on the circumstance of the business having expanded in a short time as indicative of the contribution by the family for the opening of the several branches thereof. There can, however, be no assumption in regard to that matter. Learned Counsel for the defendants relied strongly on the circumstance of the business having expanded in a short time as indicative of the contribution by the family for the opening of the several branches thereof. There can, however, be no assumption in regard to that matter. As pointed out by Sir George Rankin in Bhuru Mal v. Jagannath5: “ It is not irrelevant to reflect how many times businesses of substantial size have arisen not merely from small beginnings but by the activity of an energetic man wholly without capital, content to begin selling goods for others and in due course obtaining credit for small transactions on his own account.” It is admited in the present case that Selvarajulu was a man of considerable energy and initiative. As the learned Judge has found, his success in the business was outstanding. It was presumably as a tribute to his memory that Dakshinamurthi, soon after Selvarajulu’s death, purchased a property in the Beach Road, Pondicherry, built up a premises and named it after Selvarajulu, installing his statue in front thereof. No such recognition was given to any other member of the family and one can infer from this conduct of Dakshinamurthi, that Selvarajulu’s efforts were solely responsible for the prosperity of the business. Mr. Narasaraju has argued that whatever might be the presumption in law in regard to a business in the name of a member of a joint Hindu family, no such presumption could be resorted to in the present case, in view of the fact that Padmini, after she became a major and had also the advice of her husband and father-in-law, voluntarily subscribed to the partnership deed, Exhibit P-8. The learned Judge, as we stated earlier, was prepared to draw no inference by reason of this conduct on the part of Padmini, if her case that she trusted Dakshinamurthi’s words and had no knowledge that the business standing in the name of her father was his separate business, were to be accepted. We are in respectful agreement with that view. It would follow that the burden which lay on the defendant of proving that Selvarajulu’s business belonged to the joint family, cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be held to have been shifted to the plaintiff by reason of her agreeing to become one of the partners of the firm in the year 1948. It would follow that the burden which lay on the defendant of proving that Selvarajulu’s business belonged to the joint family, cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be held to have been shifted to the plaintiff by reason of her agreeing to become one of the partners of the firm in the year 1948. Considerable evidence has been adduced by both the parties to the litigation on the question whether the business was the separate business of its founder or not. Unless such evidence is regarded as equally balanced, there will be no occasion for deciding the case on the bssis of the onus of proof. We shall presently refer to the various circumstances of the case, which have a bearing on the question to be decided. Taking up the question of the contribution of capital to business when it was started, we have already referred to the fact that the oral evidence given by Somasundara as D.W. 1 is far from acceptable. The evidence given by the other witnesses on this question cannot be regarded, in any sense, as satisfactory. Probably, the best evidence in regard to that matter will be furnished by the account books maintained for the business. The learned Judge has found that such account books exist and they have been suppressed by the contesting defendants. This finding of the learned Judge has been challenged before us by learned Counsel appearing for the defendants. It is argued that there were no accounts maintained for the business prior to the year 1936 and even if there were any, the plaintiff must be held to have suppressed the same. Support for the first part of the contention is sought from the evidence of Sam Joseph who stated that there were no regular accounts till the year 1936. That this statement cannot be true, is clear from the other evidence in the case. The contending parties to the dispute had legal advice, the moment dispute arose between them. Subsequent thereto, correspondence followed between the Advocates for the plaintiff and Somasundara. Under Exhibit P-20 Sam Joseph then on the side of the defendants, invites Padmini to come over to Madras and inspect the account books. On 15th September, 1952, Padmini, by her letter Exhibit P-21, complains that she was not shown the account books maintained by the founder of the firm. Under Exhibit P-20 Sam Joseph then on the side of the defendants, invites Padmini to come over to Madras and inspect the account books. On 15th September, 1952, Padmini, by her letter Exhibit P-21, complains that she was not shown the account books maintained by the founder of the firm. That letter brought forth a reply (Exhibit P-22) in which Sam Joseph, acting on behalf of the firm, assured her that: “ nobody would stand in the way of your inspecting all the books of the firm since its inception.” In Exhibit P-25 the Advocate for Somasundara offered inspection of the books of account in the business premises at Madras. But when actually the plaintiff’s representative went for the inspection, the accounts prior to 1948 were not given Exhibit P-27 states that: “ the manager refused to give inspection stating that the said accounts had nothing to do with my client and that my client is not entitled to have inspection of the same.” Again in Exhibit P-3, a letter written by the Advocate acting on behalf of Somasundara, it is clearly admitted that: . “ records extending over a period of twenty-five years will conclusively establish that the business was commenced and continued to be joint family business.” Exhibit P-37 also proceeds on the footing that there were in existence account books. It was only on 2nd December, 1952, after the suit had been filed, it was stated that old account books bundled up in gunnies were in the godown and that a list had been taken of them. But yet, those account books were never placed before the Commissioner for his signature. The correspondence between the Advoctes clearly shows that the account books must have existed. Somasundara, when asked what possible -objection he could have to give inspection to the plaintiff of the earlier books of account merely stated: “As she desired to inspect accounts relating to the period prior to the agreement, I was not willing to produce these account books for inspection.” He admitted later that account books were maintained at Pondicherry during Selvarajulu’s time. He also admitted that at the time when Padmini wanted inspection of the account books by her Auditor and Lawyer, all such account books were in the Madras Office. He also admitted that at the time when Padmini wanted inspection of the account books by her Auditor and Lawyer, all such account books were in the Madras Office. That those account books related to the period since the commencement of business will be clear from the following answers given by Somasundara: Q.- You were withholding inspection of certain account books. What were they? A. - Accounts for the previous period. Q. - Therefore those books were there? A. - Yes. Q. - The account books sought inspection of were those of the period ever since Selvarajulu started business? A. - Yes. In addition, there is also evidence to show that the fourth defendent had made a statement to the Commissioner that account books from the year 1929 were in the office of the firm. Strangely but understandably, when the Commissioner, who was appointed by the Court, went to take an inventory of the account books, he could find only a few books at the office of the firm at the North Beach Road and when he went to the residence of Somasundara, he found the house locked. One can reasonably infer from this that the prior account books must have been removed by Somasundara from Madras on learning that a Commissioner had been appointed by Court to take an inventory of them. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the defendants, namely, that the earlier account books must have been with Padmini, who has suppressed the same, is without any substance whatsoever. That case was not even suggested to her when she was giving evidence. Therefore, agreeing with the learned Judge, we are of opinion that there were account books of the firm ever since its inception and they have been suppressed by the defendants in the case. This conclusion would entitle the plaintiff to call to her aid the presumption under the law that the account books, if produced, would be against the party suppressing teem. This conclusion would entitle the plaintiff to call to her aid the presumption under the law that the account books, if produced, would be against the party suppressing teem. In Ramachrandrudu v. Janakiramanna1, the Privy Council, considering the effect of the presumption enacted by Illustration (g) to section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, states: “ Their Lordships recognise the value of the presumption, and most certainly throw no doubt on the propriety of its application where it fits the facts ; but it cannot displace a contrary inference supported by adequate evidence.......” In Sandanam v. Somasundaram2, Varadachari, J., took it as a well-established proposition that an inference from the non-production of account books could be drawn only if the other circumstances in the case warrant such an inference. We have, therefore, to consider in the present case, whether the materials on record are sufficient to prove that the business started by Selvarajulu was his own. We have earlier pointed out that there had been no disruption in the joint family by reason of Exhibit P-1. But that circumstance cannot necessarily lead to an inference that the business conducted by a member of the family is joint family business. Indeed, in the present case, the learned Judge has found that both Dorairaju’s as well as Dakshinamurthi’s businesses were their respective separate businesses. Selvarajulu’s business was, no doubt, similar to the one which his father conducted, but there was a break of four years since the cessation of his father’s business and the starting of his own. Learned Counsel for the defendants has argued that the family must have had boats, which are essential for the business of stevedore and chandler. But, there is no evidence in the case that there were boats in the family, which were given over to Selvarajulu. The learned Judge has found that Selvarajulu must have been consulting Dakshinamurthi and have looked up to him for guidance in the conduct of his business. Mere consultation with the head of the family or guidance by the latter, cannot make the business of a member, joint family business. Dakshinamurthi was a cripple. He was not conversant with French language, which was essential for the business which Selvarajulu started. Further, he was himself fully occupied in his own ventures. Krishnaraj was, however, free. He was not having any business at all. Dakshinamurthi was a cripple. He was not conversant with French language, which was essential for the business which Selvarajulu started. Further, he was himself fully occupied in his own ventures. Krishnaraj was, however, free. He was not having any business at all. But there is very little, evidence in writing, apart from the statement made by Selvarajulu before the. Income-tax authorities to which we shall make reference later, to show that Krishnaraj was participating in his brother’s business. In that very statement, Exhibit D-9 to the Income-tax Authorities, Selvarajulu significantly stated. “ The whole business is conducted by me only”. It has been argued on behalf of the defendants that the very magnitude of the business of Selvarajulu would show that there should have been other participants thereto. Selvarajulu, it was said, was interesting himself in the politics of the French Settlements: he would, therefore, have had very little time to devote himself to his business, and Dakshinamurthi and Krishnaraj must, therefore, be held to have managed that business. We are unable to accept this contention. The fact that the business of Selvarajulu had several branches, cannot mean that more than one person would be necessary for the conduct of the business. The number of branches were as many as eight and they exceeded the number of male members in the family. If it were to be held that one person cannot manage them all together, three of them too could not have managed the same. It is common knowledge that not unoften such business are conducted through trusted employees and there is nothing in the evidence before us to show that there were not such employees at the various places where Selvarajulu’s business had branches. The proceedings before the Income-tax Authorities for the year 1936-37 make reference to Krishnaraj staying at Masula for about three months in the year. There is also evidence to show that he was drawing certain moneys. But, whether his stay was a regular one as a proprietor of the business or whether he went there as an employee of Selvarajulu, can be ascertained only from the account books of the business, which unfortunately have been suppressed. Such account books, if produced, would have shown whether the drawings made by Krishnaraj. were done with the authority of Selvarajulu or whether they were taken by him.. in his own right. Such account books, if produced, would have shown whether the drawings made by Krishnaraj. were done with the authority of Selvarajulu or whether they were taken by him.. in his own right. Or it may be that the drawings made by him were debited to his account in adjustment of salary or as payment to him as an employee ; it may be that he was treated as a debtor of the firm. No inference could, therefore be drawn from the mere fact that Krishnaraj was allowed to draw moneys. There is no evidence to show how much money he drew and for what purposes. There are, however, two important circumstances in the case, which, if unexplained or regarded as sufficient in the context of the other circumstances might go a long way to support the defendants’ contention. The first is, that during the absence of Selvarajulu in the year 1931, when he left India for stay in. Paris, a loan of Rupees eighteen thousand was raised for the purpose of his business under Exhibit D-7 by Dakshinamurthi and Krishnaraj. The document bears the date 28th December, 1931. The property mortgaged was joint family property. But the executants did not refer to the business as one in which they had any interest. On the other hand, Dakshinamurthi, describing himself, stated that he was acting in his own name and in the capacity of proxy for Selvarajulu. The loan contracted under that document was discharged by Selvarajulu himself. For the defendants, Exhibit D-7 is relied on as disclosing conduct from which an inference of the joint family character of the business would be irresistible. We are, however, unable to accept that extreme contention. It is not uncommon for members of the family to accommodate another member of the family by helping him to raise loans for his own business. Such help cannot necessarily mean that the business of such a member is joint family business. There is evidence in this case of joint borrowings by Dakshinamurthi and Selvarajulu. Exhibit D-8 evidences a borrowings of a sum of Rupees ten thousand by Dakshinamurthi and Selvarajulu on 3rd July, 1935. The principal and interest due on this promissory note were paid out of the business funds of Selvarajulu by a draft drawn on the Imperial Bank of India, where he had an account: vide Exhibit D-36 (b). Exhibit D-8 evidences a borrowings of a sum of Rupees ten thousand by Dakshinamurthi and Selvarajulu on 3rd July, 1935. The principal and interest due on this promissory note were paid out of the business funds of Selvarajulu by a draft drawn on the Imperial Bank of India, where he had an account: vide Exhibit D-36 (b). In the assessment of the Income-tax Officer relative to the year 1936-37, there is a reference to a borrowing by Selvarajulu and Dakshinamurthi of Rupees ten thousand in the year 1936 from Messrs. Soora Bros. How far this recital can be taken as evidence of the borrowing is a doubtful point. But even if there be such a borrowing, it cannot necessarily lead to the inference that the borrowing was for a joint family business. No evidence has been let in, in the present case to show whether Selvarajulu had accommodated Dakshinamurthi for his admitted separate business by that transaction or vice versa. Exhibit D-35 evidences a suit instituted by the Official Assignee of Madras against Dakshinamurthi and Selvarajulu in respect of a deposit alleged to have been made by an insolvent, G. K. N. & Sons with the defendants therein. Selvarajulu is described in the plaint as carrying on business at Madras. There is, however, nothing in that plaint to suggest that the business was a joint one. It was not a relevant occasion for the defendants therein to assert or deny any individual right that they may have in respect of their respective businesses. The only fact that emerges from Exhibits D-35 and D-35 (a) is that the insolvent deposited moneys and found accommodation for the defendants from time to time. The learned Judge has regarded this document and the statement of account which accompanied the plaint, as showing that the transactions of Selvarajulu and Dakshinamurthi were intertwined. We are, with respect, unable to share that view. A deposit by a third party with Dakshinamurthi and Selvarajulu cannot necessarily mean that the business of one was interwined with the other particularly when that money has not been shown to have gone into Selvarajulu business. At the risk of repetition, we may point out that it is not the case of the defendants that Dakshinamurthi’s business was a joint family business. It might be that Dakshinamurthi took that money for his business. At the risk of repetition, we may point out that it is not the case of the defendants that Dakshinamurthi’s business was a joint family business. It might be that Dakshinamurthi took that money for his business. If the inference drawn by the learned Judge from Exhibits D-35, D-35 (a) and D-35 (b) were to be accepted Dakshinamurthi’s business also must be a joint family business. Yet, that is nobody’s case. It can be taken as probable that both Dakshinamurthi and Selvarajulu contributed moneys for the upkeep of the joint family, which consisted of not merely the members of the family but of Somasundara’s as well. But such contributions for the maintenance of the family or acts of kindness of either Dakshinamurthi or Selvarajulu towards the other members of the family cannot mean that each one of them had lost control over his separate business and threw it into the common stock. The most important evidence in the case is Selvarajulu’s statement to the Income-tax Authorities. That is evidenced by Exhibit D-9. He has admitted in that statement that Krishnaraj was undivided from him, that he stays in a part of the Masulipatam business premises and that the business itself was a joint family business. But curiously enough, there is no mention in the statement of Dakshina murthi’s interest in the business of Selvarajulu. The only joint family referred to in it is the family consisting of Selvarajulu and his younger brother Krishnaraj, who were the sons of Nandagopal. Exhibit D-9 itself contains certain obvious misstatements. For one thing, it is stated there that the business which Selvarajulu was carrying on was a continuation of his father’s business, which is not true. It then proceeds to say that Krishnaraj was paid monthly allowances and that he would be entitled, on partition, to a share of the business. On the basis of that statement, the Income-tax Officer assessed Selvarajulu as a Hindu undivided family. After Selvarajulu’s death, the assessment was made as if the assessee continued to be a Hindu undivided family consisting of Krishnaraj and Dakshinamurthi: vide Exhibit D-14. But strangely enough neither Krishnaraju’s nor Dakshinamurthi’s earnings were brought into the assessment. There is clear evidence to show that the statements of Selvarajulu before the Income-tax Authorities were motivated. After Selvarajulu’s death, the assessment was made as if the assessee continued to be a Hindu undivided family consisting of Krishnaraj and Dakshinamurthi: vide Exhibit D-14. But strangely enough neither Krishnaraju’s nor Dakshinamurthi’s earnings were brought into the assessment. There is clear evidence to show that the statements of Selvarajulu before the Income-tax Authorities were motivated. The learned Judge has found that Selvarajulu, when he made those statements, stood to gain by the business being treated as belonging to a joint Hindu family. This conclusion is amply supported by the evidence. Exhibits P-94 and P-95 are letters written by Sam Joseph and Ramanathan to Selvarajulu on 10th June, 1937, and 16th October, 1938, respectively. They reveal a desperate anxiety on their part to reduce the income-tax payable by the firm. Exhibit P-94 shows that Krishnaraj was acting under a power-of-attorney from Selvarajulu. Significantly enough, Sam Joseph in that letter says: “ From the arguments brought forward on your admission of joint family by the Income-tax Officer, the stay of Krishnaraj at Masulla may affect our case even though we made it plain that his stay at Masula was only temporary for attending to the steamers during their stay in the port for the purpose of supervision.” This letter is capable of the construction that the admission as to the joint family character of the business was made by Selvarajulu with ulterior motives. In the other letter, Ramanathan assures Selvarajulu that his Advocate was a personal friend of the Commissioner of Income-tax and he could get substantial reduction of the tax through his influence. Under the Finance Act applicable to the relevant period, an individual would be liable for super-tax if his income was above Rupees twenty-five thousand, whereas in the case of a joint Hindu undivided family, the limit will be Rupees fifty thousand. It has been conceded by learned Counsel for the respondents that the attempt of Selvarajulu at that time was to prove that he was a non-resident and therefore liable only to a reduced tax on that account. The avoidance of super-tax and income-tax must therefore have been the motive with which the statement about joint family was made to the Income-tax authorities. The very assessment order, Exhibit D-14, shows that Dakshinamurthi was doing business with Selvarajulu’s firm. It is stated that Dakshinamurthi made a profit by supplying dunnage to Selvarajulu’s business. The avoidance of super-tax and income-tax must therefore have been the motive with which the statement about joint family was made to the Income-tax authorities. The very assessment order, Exhibit D-14, shows that Dakshinamurthi was doing business with Selvarajulu’s firm. It is stated that Dakshinamurthi made a profit by supplying dunnage to Selvarajulu’s business. That is inconsistent with Dakshinamurthi having an interest in the business. Sam Joseph has stated in his evidence that Selvarajulu’s business was assessed sometimes as an individual concern and sometimes as a Hindu undivided family. Although the assessment orders by the Income-tax Authorities must have been in existence from the very commencement of the business at Madras, no attempt has been made by the defendants to produce those assessment orders. One cannot, therefore, place much reliance upon the admission of Selvarajulu contained in Exhibit D-9, which, as we pointed out earlier, is not merely prefaced by false statements of fact but is also inconsistent with the family being the owner of Selvarajulu’s business, as Dakshinamurthi has not been shown as entitled to an interest in the business or of having participated in the same. Referring to this aspect of Selvarajulu’s statement, the learned Judge observed that he must have been advised that it was advantageous not to mention Dakshinamurthi. We have, however, no evidence of any such advice being given to Selvarajulu. The circumstance that Dakshinamurthi had supplied dunnage at a profit to Selvarajulu’s business might either indicate that the price was inflated, in which event that circumstance will be consistent with Selvarajulu’s business being a joint family business, or it might indicate that Dakshinamurthi’s separate business had earned a profit by its transaction with Selvarajulu’s business. Having regard to the fact that Dakshinamurthi was having a separate business, the profits earned by him in the supply of dunnage must prima facie be regarded as a result of a transaction inter se between Dakshinamurthi and Selvarajulu. It must be remembered that Dakshinamurthi had his own banking account. This has been admitted by Somasundara in his evidence, although he would say that that account, which was with the Indo-China Bank, was a family account. If that were so, one would certainly have expected Somasundara to produce Dakshinamurthi’s bank account or any other account that he might have kept for his own business. There is a complete black-out of information in regard to Dakshinamurthi’s separate business. If that were so, one would certainly have expected Somasundara to produce Dakshinamurthi’s bank account or any other account that he might have kept for his own business. There is a complete black-out of information in regard to Dakshinamurthi’s separate business. During the course of the cross-examination of Sam Joseph, an attempt was made to show that a sum of Rupees 126-12-0, which was paid by Messrs. Gordon and Woodroffe and Company, to Dakshinamurthi, was actually put into the account of Selvaraj with the Chartered Bank, at Madras. Nothing has been established in the evidence to show that that sum was payable to Dakshinamurthi. Even assuming that it was so, a solitary instance of that kind cannot prove that Selvarajulu’s business profited by Dakshinamurthy’s contribution. It is not unusual that the facilities which an individual has with a bank are utilised by others for realising the cheques issued to them. None of the circumstances referred to above, except the statements and proceedings relating to the assessment of income-tax and the joint borrowings for the business, can be regarded as by itself sufficient to prove that the business carried on by Selvarajulu was not his own. However the proceedings relating to the assessment to income-tax of Selvarajulu as a Hindu undivided family, together with his statement before the Income-tax Officer, though of a comparatively high probative value, cannot be given much weight, in the circumstances of the case, for there was a motive for the assessee then to state that his business was that of the family. Selvarajulu was then young and he could not have expected that his and was near. Having regard to the cordial relationship that existed between himself and the other members of the family, he might have thought that he would not be prejudicing his interests by making the statement of the kind contained in Exhibit D-9. So far as the joint borrowings are concerned, they are not inconsistent with one or other of the members of the family coming to the aid of Selvarajulu for raising moneys. We must not forget that the evidence in the case establishes that in every case, the discharge of such borrowed moneys was made out of the moneys earned in Selvarajulu’s business. Sam Joseph has stated that Krishnaraj was attending to the business in some of the branches and that there were plenty of documents to support that case. We must not forget that the evidence in the case establishes that in every case, the discharge of such borrowed moneys was made out of the moneys earned in Selvarajulu’s business. Sam Joseph has stated that Krishnaraj was attending to the business in some of the branches and that there were plenty of documents to support that case. Except the papers relating to the income-tax proceedings, no others have been produced to show that Krishnaraj participated in Selvarajulu’s business. The case for the plaintiff is that Krishnaraj was a sickly person. Whether that has been made out or not, there is very little documentary evidence to show that he played any significant part in the management of any of the branches of the business. The assessment proceedings only disclose that Krishnaraj had been to Masulipatam but in what capacity and for what purpose he did so, is not clear. We have also to note certain other significant circumstances in coming to the conclusion whether Selvarajulu’s business was his separate one or not. All the contracts entered into for the purpose of the business were admittedly in his name. D.W. 2, Somasundara has admitted this. The fact that it was Selvarajulu that incurred personal obligations in respect of such contracts and that on occasions he had even to borrow moneys from Multanis, is seen from the evidence. A short time before the death of Selvarajulu, one of the creditors of his business had filed a suit in the Sub-Court of Cocanada for recovery of a sum of Rupees eight thousand. The claim was in respect of amounts advanced to Selvarajulu’s business at Masulipatam and Cocanada. The only defendant impleaded to the action was Selvarajulu. If Krishnaraj was really attending to the business at Masulipatam and he had an interest in such business, there was no reason why the creditor should not have impleaded Krishnaraj as well. But that he did not do. It will be evident from this piece of conduct on the part of a third party, that the only person carrying on the business at Masulipatam and Cocanada was Selvarajulu himself. During the pendency of the suit, Selvarajulu died. The creditor thereupon took steps for impleading Padmini as his legal representative. But both Dakshinamurthi and Krishnaraj had decided to continue the business themselves and therefore they applied to come on record in the suit and ultimately settled that claim. During the pendency of the suit, Selvarajulu died. The creditor thereupon took steps for impleading Padmini as his legal representative. But both Dakshinamurthi and Krishnaraj had decided to continue the business themselves and therefore they applied to come on record in the suit and ultimately settled that claim. Krishnaraj, as the paternal uncle and guardian of Padmini, filed a counter-statement to the creditor’s application to implead Padmini, stating that the latter was not the legal representative of the deceased defendant. In that statement (Exhibit P-46-B) Krishnaraj states, referring to himself and Dakshinamurthi: They are continuing all the business of the defendant under the name and style of the deceased defendant. No document has been produced by the defendants to show that during the lifetime of Selvarajulu either Krishnaraj or Dakshinamurthi undertook the responsibility of the business or to share in its profits. This is in significant contrast to what happened after Selvarajulu’s death. Then, both Dakshinamurthi and Krishnaraj entered into an agreement (Exhibit P-105) for doing business. We have already referred to the fact that a large sum of money amounting to nearly Rupees one lakh and thirty-six thousand had been advanced from out of the funds of Selvarajulu’s business to Somasundara, for his business; run under the name of Jayalakshmi and Company ; Somasundara has admitted that it was Selvarajulu who advanced him that money. Significantly enough,, no mention is made of Dakshinamurthi in regard to that matter. It has also been admitted by Somasundara, that the second item which was mortgaged under Exhibit D-7 stood in the name of Selvarajulu. That Selvarajulu had purchased properties in his own name, has been stated by two of the plaintiff’s, witnesses. But, unfortunately, owing to the attitude adopted by the defendants in the case, of suppressing all material evidence that would help the plaintiff’s case, it had not been possible for the latter to produce at the trial documents relating: to purchases made by Selvarajulu during his lifetime. The learned Judge referred; to the fact that several of the documents had been entrusted to mediators at the time of 1951 settlement. Mr. Balasubramaniam, an Advocate practising at Pondicherry, had custody of them. Unfortunately, he died and his clerk one Ambalavanan, got into possession of those documents. The learned Judge referred; to the fact that several of the documents had been entrusted to mediators at the time of 1951 settlement. Mr. Balasubramaniam, an Advocate practising at Pondicherry, had custody of them. Unfortunately, he died and his clerk one Ambalavanan, got into possession of those documents. There is evidence to show that Somasundara got a number of documents from him and that he had left with Ambalavanan, by inadvertence, Exhibits P-1 and P-2 which Padmini was able, later to secure. Padmini was, however, able to get copies of certain documents relating to purchase of properties by Selvarajulu. She filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 7841 of 1963 for reception of the certified copies of sale deeds as additional documentary evidence in the case. There was practically no objection to the receipt of that evidence and we, by an order on that application, admitted those documents in evidence. They have since been marked as Exhibits P-110 to P-112. These documents evidence purchase of five items and they unmistakably show that Selvarajulu had the intention of retaining exclusive control over his earnings. If the business conducted by him had belonged to the joint family, one would have expected him to make these purchases in the name of the manager of the family, namely, Dakshinamurthi. It is not suggested on behalf of the defendants that it is the practice of the family to make purchases in the names of its junior members. For example, no document has been filed to show any purchase in the name of Krishnaraj. There is also no evidence on the side of the defendants to show that any purchase, out of the earnings of Selvarajulu’s business, was ever made in the name of Dakshinamurthi. Thus, it will be seen that out of the earnings from his business, Selvarajulu had purchased properties, had insured his life for a substantial amount and had advanced a large sum of money to Somasundara and there was also a substantial balance remaining in his banking account, which was later on drawn out by Dakshinamurthi and Krishnaraj. Sam Joseph, who must certainly have been in the know of things, apprised Padmini immediately after the death of Dakshinamurthi that the business run in the name of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co., was really her father’s separate business. Sam Joseph, who must certainly have been in the know of things, apprised Padmini immediately after the death of Dakshinamurthi that the business run in the name of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co., was really her father’s separate business. Though he would now support the case of his employer, his earlier version supports only the case of the business being the separate business of Selvarajulu. It is no doubt true that both Dakshinamurthi and Krishnaraj set up the case that the business belonged to the joint family immediately after the death of Selvarajulu. Their conduct, in that regard, however has not been as straight as one would have expected. With undue haste they obtained a succession certificate from the Pondicherry authorities. In this Court also they applied for a similar certificate without disclosing that the deceased had a daughter surviving, although the relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act did require them to state that fact. They informed the constituents of the firm that they have succeeded to the business of Selvarajulu. But it is somewhat significant that when Krishnaraj begins to write, a few days after the death of his brother, to two of his friends, he refers to the business as Selvarajulu’s business ; vide Exhibits P-44 and P-45. Was this due to the fact that those friends were aware of the true character of the business and it would be only inviting trouble if he were to assert title to the business in himself? Learned Counsel for the defendants places strong reliance on the admission made by Padmini in her evidence that Dakshinamurthi was very fond of her and brought her up as his own daughter. He, therefore, argues that Dakshinamurthi, who had no child of his own and looked upon Padmini as his own daughter, would be the last person who would deprive her of her right to the legitimate succession to the business and that his conduct in taking over the business as forming part of the joint family property would be indicative of the business itself being a joint family one. It is difficult to accept this contention. It is difficult to accept this contention. Probably, at the time when Dakshinamurthi took over the business, he thought that personal factor being an important one in the business, there was no harm in claiming it as his own and that he could later recompense Padmini sufficiently for what he took over, or he might have thought that treating the business as a joint family business would avoid the inconvenience of continuing the business in the name of a minor girl, and of furnishing security to the appropriate authorities for the due administration of her property. But immediately after Padmini got married, Dakshinamurthi admitted her as a partner in the business. Having regard to the nature of the business one can say that the 20 per cent. share in the business given to Padmini is a fair recompense for the ownership of the goodwill. The remaining 80 per cent. was distributed between the actual workers in the business, and we consider that it is by no means an unfair measure of the worth of the services of those people. To sum up, the business of stevedoring started by Selvarajulu in the year 1926, when he was just 24 years old, must have required some capital. But the family, having regard to its past experience and to the further fact that Selvarajulu was very young and inexperienced at that time, would not have undertaken the risks of business by starting one in his name. That conduct would indeed be consistent with its declared policy in Exhibit P-1. Who made the initial contribution for the business of Selvarajulu has not been made out in the evidence. The account books would have furnished valuable evidence on that point, but such account books have been suppressed. Therefore the plaintiff, there being no other evidence in regard to the contribution of capital by the family, would be entitled to ask the Court to draw the inference that if the account books were produced, they would militate against the theory of contribution by the family. As we said, even if some moneys had been contributed by the family, they might have regarded it as a present or temporary accommodation given to Selvarajulu, so that he could use the same for the purpose of his own business. As we said, even if some moneys had been contributed by the family, they might have regarded it as a present or temporary accommodation given to Selvarajulu, so that he could use the same for the purpose of his own business. There has been no participation in the business either by Dakshinamurthi or Krishnaraj during the lifetime of Selvarajulu, although the business expanded during a comparatively short period of time. There is no doubt some evidence of joint borrowings by the members of the family for the purpose of Selvarajulu’s business. But such borrowings are few and are not inconsistent with the business being Selvarajulu’s own. The statement made by Selvarajulu before the Income-tax authorities that the business belonged to the joint family consisting of himself and Krishnaraj supports neither one case not the other. The statement itself has been demonstrated to be inaccurate in its premises and as one motivated with the object of securing a benefit in the payment of income-tax. It was only after the lifetime of Selvarajulu that Dakshinamurthi and his nephew asserted title to the business as forming part of the joint family property.It must however, be said that at that time Dakshinamurthi had no motive to cheat Padmini, whom he was bringing up as his own child. But as against all these, there are also these facts ; the family itself could not have had much available cash to advance to the business, which was done in the name of a junior member. Selvarajulu was entirely managing his business in his time and had his own bank accounts, while Dakshinamurthi had his separate business and a separate banking account. There is also evidence that Dakshinamurthi was having transactions in the sale of dunnage with Selvarajulu. While there is evidence that Selvarajulu had purchased from out of his earnings in his business, properties in his own name, there is no evidence that any properties were purchased in the name of Dakshinamurthi, the manager of the family, out of such earnings. It is true that the family was large and more than one marriage had been celebrated in the family at great expense. Dakshinamurthi as well as Selvarajulu must have contributed not a little for those expenses of the family. It is true that the family was large and more than one marriage had been celebrated in the family at great expense. Dakshinamurthi as well as Selvarajulu must have contributed not a little for those expenses of the family. But the mere fact that a member of a family contributes this earnings for the expenses of the family, cannot make his business as the business of the family. Taking all these circumstances together, we are of opinion that the business of Selvarajulu must be regarded as his own. The utmost that one can say in this case, is that the evidence is equally balanced. The rule as to the burden of proof will, then, have to be resorted to for the purpose of deciding the issue. Agreeing with the learned Judge, we have already held that any admission inferable in Padmini subscribing to the partnership deed, must have been made at a time when she was not in full possession of the facts relating to the business and it could not be given that amount of weight which it would otherwise have. Under these circumstances, the burden of proving that the business did not belong to Selvarajulu, must lie on the defendants. This they have failed to discharge. We are, therefore, unable, with respect, to agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Judge in regard to the declaration sought, viz., that she is the sole and absolute owner of the business of N. Selvarajulu Chetty and that run under the name and style of Messrs. N. Selvarajulu Chetty and Co., being entitled to the goodwill thereof. She will be entitled to that declaration and an appropriate injunction against the defendants. The next question relates to the further relief to which Padmini would be entitled. The learned Judge, in view of his finding that the only right to which Padmini would be entitled, was that of a partner, granted her relief by calling upon the defendants to account as and from 20th November, 1952. But, in view of our finding that the partnership documents will not be binding upon her and that she would be entitled exclusively to the goodwill of the business carried on under the name of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co., it must follow that both Dakshinamurthi’s estate as well as the other defendants would be liable to render her an account. But, in view of our finding that the partnership documents will not be binding upon her and that she would be entitled exclusively to the goodwill of the business carried on under the name of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co., it must follow that both Dakshinamurthi’s estate as well as the other defendants would be liable to render her an account. But, as we pointed out earlier, the success of the business of stevedoring will have to depend largely on the personal attention and devotion which the persons in charge thereof give it. There can be little doubt that after the death of Selvarajulu, Dakshinamurthi, Krishnaraj and Somasundara contributed very much to the preservation as well as the prosperity of the business. They would be entitled to take out of the profits of the business, a portion by way of remuneration. So long as Dakshinamurthi was alive, it is admitted that he was treating Padmini as his own child. She was married at considerable expense and she also obtained, under the arrangement of the year 1951, her share of the family propertes, some of which must presumably have been earned out of the income from the business. Under those circumstances, we consider that it will be inequitable to direct any accounting for the period ending with Dakshinamurthi’s death. Subsequently thereto, the business was carried on by Somasundara and other persons. They would be liable to render Padmini an account. We consider that, in all the circumstancs of the case, the 20 per cent. share of profits fixed by Dakshinamurthi under the partnership deed to Padmini is a fair measure of the amount due to the owner of the goodwill. There will, be a decree for an account of the income from the business from the date of death of Dakshinamurthi, and 20 per cent. of the profits will have to be paid by the persons in management of the business to Padmini. They will have to account for the assets of the business as well as for profits at the rate mentioned above. Appeal allowed with costs on the scale allowed by the learned Judge. ------ Appeal allowed. Original Side Appeal Mo. 60 of 1959. They will have to account for the assets of the business as well as for profits at the rate mentioned above. Appeal allowed with costs on the scale allowed by the learned Judge. ------ Appeal allowed. Original Side Appeal Mo. 60 of 1959. The Judgment of this Court was delivered by Ramakrishnan, J.- The first defendant Somasundaram Chettiar, the third defendant Anasuya and the fourth defendant Ramanathan have appealed against the decision of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. (as he then was) in Civil Suit No. 329 of 1952. Kuppammal (second defendant) died during the pendency of the suit and the first defendant to whom she had executed a will in respect of her properties became her legal representative. Pending the appeal Somasundaram Chettiar (first defendant) also died and the fourth defendant, the Advocate-executor under the will of the first defendant, and the fifth defendant were added as his legal representatives. Learned Counsel for the third defendant (second appellant) Anasuya represented that he did not press the appeal so far as his client was concerned, but the appeal was pressed on behalf of the first appellant (now by his legal representatives) and on behalf of the third appellant (fourth defendant). In this appeal, the subject-matter comprises of the reliefs given to the plaintiff by the decree of the learned Judge. These reliefs are: (i) the right to have an account taken of the assets of Messrs. N. Selvarajulu Chetty and Company at Madras, as it stood on 20th November, 1952, defendants 1, 3 and 4 being restrained by an injunction from carrying on the business subsequently ; (ii) it was found by the learned Judge that the late Selvarajulu had taken four insurance policies in, his name and that on his death the amounts of these insurance policies which came to Rs. 1,32,416, were drawn by Dakshinamurthi and Krishnarajulu. The learned Judge’s finding was that Rs. 27,993 was paid towards premia by Selvarajulu from the joint family funds, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the insurance money less the premia paid, which came to Rs. 1,04,423. The decree directed defendants 1, 3 and 4 to pay this amount to the plaintiff, from the assets’ of Krishnarajulu and Dakshinamurthi in their hands. 27,993 was paid towards premia by Selvarajulu from the joint family funds, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the insurance money less the premia paid, which came to Rs. 1,04,423. The decree directed defendants 1, 3 and 4 to pay this amount to the plaintiff, from the assets’ of Krishnarajulu and Dakshinamurthi in their hands. Since, out of the insurance money, Rupees fifty thousand had been spent on the erection of Selva Mansions which passed to the possession of the plaintiff, a charge on the assets of the firm of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co. was given only for the balance of Rupees fifty-four thousand four hundred and twenty-three. The assets in the hands of Dakshinamurthi devolved on his wife Kuppammal and on her death they devolved on defendants 1, 3 and 4. Therefore the decree also made defendants 1, 3 and 4 liable to pay the aforesaid, sum, out of the assets of Kuppammal or any benefit derived from Kuppammal in their hands, (iii) the plaintiff claimed in the suit the return of the jewels specified in paragraph 16 (d) of the plaint or their value as estimated in the plaint. It was found that out of these jewels, three items had been given to one Palaniswami. Mudaliar as a loan and he deposited them into Court. The plaintiff was directed to take a return of them from the Court. The decree directed the first defendant to hand over the remaining jewels listed out in the schedule to the plaint or failing that, to pay the plaintiff the value thereof estimated at Rupees one lakh and three thousand, with interest thereon at six per cent. per annum from the date of decree till the date of payment. The present appeal of the aggrieved defendants deals with the above reliefs granted to the plaintiff. So far as the appeal in regard to the first relief of account taking is concerned, our decision in the connected appeal Original Side Appeal No. 49 of 1960, pronounced to-day, will apply. It is also convenient to deal in this judgment with certain objections raised by the plaintiff-respondent herein, and appellant in Original Side Appeal No. 49 of 1960. These objections relate to the deduction of premia from the amount of the policies by the learned Judge, and disallowance of interest on the amount decreed between the date of plaint and date of decree. These objections relate to the deduction of premia from the amount of the policies by the learned Judge, and disallowance of interest on the amount decreed between the date of plaint and date of decree. We will take up next for consideration the claim in regard to the insurance policy amounts. The particulars of the policies are succinctly: (1) a policy for Rupees ten thousand with the Sun Life Insurance Company taken on 21st December, 1919 ; (ii) another policy for Rupees thirty thousand with the same company taken on 20th August, 1928. These two were endowment policies and were not made the subject of any assignment but were made payable to the insurer, or on his death to his executors, administrators and assigns. The other two were also endowment policies for amounts of Rupees thirty thousand and Rupees fifty thousand taken on 8th April, 1936 and 25th March, 1937 respectively with the North British Mercantile Insurance Company, Limited, Calcutta, the amount being payable to the assured or his representatives or assigns. On these policies yearly premia were paid, and the amount assured became due when Selvarajulu died of gun-shot wounds in 1938 It is also in evidence that Dakshinamurthi and Krishnarajulu, immediately after the death of Selvarajulu, got a declaration Exhibit P-12 from the Assistant Judge of the Pondicherry Court entitling them to realize these amounts, under the procedure followed in the French territories at Pondicherry under the French Law. Armed with this declaration, Dakshinamurthi and Krishnarajulu approached the Insurance companies to pay the amount to them. The Companies were not willing to act upon the declaration given by the French Authorities at Pondicherry and insisted upon a succession certificate, under the law in force in Indian territory. Dakshinamurthi and Krishnarajulu filed a petition for succession certificate in the Madras High Court - Original Petition No. 202 of 1939 - on 27th July, 1939. They swore in that petition that they were the only heirs of Selvarajulu and next-of-kin according to the Hindu Law, and that they were the sole surviving coparceners entitled to the assets of Selvarajulu, which included these insurance amounts. They also alleged that the premia were paid from the funds of the business of Selvarajulu which was a joint family business. They also alleged that the premia were paid from the funds of the business of Selvarajulu which was a joint family business. The form of the application prescribed under the Indian Succession Act, requires that the details of the members of the family or other relatives of the deceased should be stated. But Dakshinamurthi and Krishnarajulu deliberately omitted all references to the existence of Padmini the daughter of Selvarajulu, the plaintiff in the suit Taking advantage of certain rules on the Original Side of the High Court, they obtained orders from the Court for dispensing with the publication of the application in the daily papers. They also got an order in their favour for dispensing with the furnishing of security. There-after on 10th August, 1939, a date within ten days after the re-presentation of the petition, after rectifying certain formal defects, they got an order in their favour. With that order, they got the sums assured paid to them. These facts are not now in dispute. The learned Judge found that the business carried on by Selvarajulu was a joint family business, and that the premia had been paid out of the income of that joint family business. He relied upon a decision of this Court in Venkata Subba Rao v. Lakshminarasamma1, where the learned Chief Justice P. V. Rajamannar, expressed the view that in the case of policies of insurance, " having regard to the modern social conditions and the growth of individual consciousness in marked contrast to the more corporate outlook of an earlier day, the general presumption must be that, when one of the members of a joint family insured his life, the amount of the policy belongs ............to the assured as his separate property and does not become a joint family asset and that the premia (even if paid from the joint family funds) must be treated as amounts drawn by the individual members and they must be debited with those amounts. Treating this view as a proposition of law, the learned Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to the assured amounts less the premia paid. Treating this view as a proposition of law, the learned Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to the assured amounts less the premia paid. Since Dakshinamurthi and Krishnarajulu had utilized the insurance amounts by spending Rupees fifty thousand for the two constructions called Selva Mansions and Selva Park in Pondicherry, only the balance of Rupess fifty-four thousand, four hundred and twenty-three went into the business of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co., which was continued by Dakshinamurthi and Krishnarajulu after Selvarajulu Chetty’s death leading to a charge for the latter amounts on the assets of that firm. In view of our finding in the connected appeal Original Side Appeal No. 49 of 1960, that the business of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co., was the separate business of Selvarajulu Chetty, it would follow, that the policy amounts belong to the plaintiff in their entirety, as the sole heir of Selvarajulu Chetty. But arguments were also advanced before us as to whether the finding of the learned Judge, in regard to the policy amounts could be supported, on the basis that the premia were paid out of the income of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co., which according to the learned Judge was a joint family business. We propose to deal with this argument also briefly, in the following paragraphs. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri R. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, urged that the above, mentioned decision in Venkata Subba Rao v. Lakshminarasamma1, was considered by the Supreme Court in Parbati Kuer v. Sarangdhar,2and in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court the conclusion of the learned Judge could not be supported. However, the decision of the Supreme Court seems to have depended to a great extent on the facts of the particular case, and we find no express dissent from the view of the Bench of this Court in Venkata Subba Rao v. Lakshminarasamma1. In the Supreme Court case, one of three brothers who belonged to a joint Hindu family had taken three insurance policies on their lives and on his death, his two step-brothers claimed the insurance monies as joint family property. There was a concession in the High Court on behalf of the appellant, that the premia were paid out of the joint family funds. There was a concession in the High Court on behalf of the appellant, that the premia were paid out of the joint family funds. Besides this concession, their Lordships of the Supreme Court also referred to the evidence in that case, which showed that in the account books of a printing press, which was a joint family concern, there was an insurance khata in which the payment of premia for all the policies were entered, and there was no separate khata for each brother showing the debit of the insurance premia in the separate khata. There was also proof that some of the policies matured in the lifetime of the insured. The proceeds of one policy were deposited in different khatas of the joint family, and they were used also for the purposes of the joint family. Addressing themselves to the question whether as a matter of law, insurance was a special venture and was meant only for the benefit of the family of the assured and whether the other coparceners had no interest in the policies, their Lordships observed that the question was not whether the particular member took out the policies for the benefit of his own family, but whether he did so without detriment to the joint family funds and that if it was the latter, then anything obtained with the joint family funds would belong to the joint family. Then they referred to the judgment of the Bench of this Court in Venkata Subba Rao v. Lakshminarasamma1, and observed that it was not necessary for the Supreme Court to decide whether the broad proposition stated by the Bench should be accepted because in the particular case before them there was evidence to show that none of the brothers intended to treat as a separate asset the assured amounts payable on maturity and that therefore the case fell within the exception contemplated by the Judges of this Court in their decision. It may be recalled that this exception, deals with evidence showing a clear indication that the member did not intend to treat the insurance amount as his separate asset. In the present case, the most significant factor is that the first defendant, who had in his possession the accounts of the business of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co-did not care to produce them into Court in spite of repeated opportunities given to him for the purpose. In the present case, the most significant factor is that the first defendant, who had in his possession the accounts of the business of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co-did not care to produce them into Court in spite of repeated opportunities given to him for the purpose. These accounts would have clearly shown the existence of two vital requirements stressed by the Supreme Court in their judgment, before the joint family could claim the insured amount as part of their assets, viz., (i) that the premia were paid under circumstances which amounted to a detriment to the joint family funds: (ii) the evidence of conduct or other dealing which would show that the insurer did not intend to treat the insurance amount as his separate asset. The learned Judge observed in the course of his judgment that though there was not much evidence as to how the premia were paid on the first of the policies, dated 21st December, 1919, in regard to the later policies, there was clear evidence that they were paid out of the monies in the banking accounts opened in respect of the business and hence it would follow that the premia were paid, out of the joint family funds. At the time when the first policy was drawn up in 1919, the business of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co., had not commenced. Shortly before Selvarajulu and his brothers had entered into the agreement Exhibit P-1 in 1918, under which one of the brothers left the joint family, the other brothers who remained joint in food and residence and kept the immovable properties undivided, agreed that in respect of the business which might be conducted by each of them, the others would, not be liable either for profits or losses. The amount of the a first policy was not large and the premia amount also was not considerable (about Rupees six hundred per annum). It is only for the subsequent policies after the business of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co. was commenced in 1925 the insurance amounts were large: Rupees one lakh and ten thousand and the annual premia were also correspondingly large (about Rupees four thousand five hundred). It would be a legitimate inference that Selvarajulu, taking into account the flourishing nature of the business and the profits it yielded, decided to go in for these heavy insurance policies.. was commenced in 1925 the insurance amounts were large: Rupees one lakh and ten thousand and the annual premia were also correspondingly large (about Rupees four thousand five hundred). It would be a legitimate inference that Selvarajulu, taking into account the flourishing nature of the business and the profits it yielded, decided to go in for these heavy insurance policies.. Since he married in 1924 and the plaintiff had been born in 1925, it will be quite reasonable to hold that he took these additional policies in 1928, 1936 and 1937’ as any other prudent person would do, to benefit his wife and daughter. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, Sri K. Rajah Iyer, that even if one were to assume that the business of Selvarajulu Chetty and Co. ‘was a joint family business, there is not enough material to conclude that the premia were paid with detriment to the joint family funds. In the absence of the relevant accounts of the business, the task of deciding this question has become exceedingly difficult. It has been found that the first defendant was in possession of the accounts of the Madras branch of the business. The payments of the monies are entered in the banking accounts kept in Madras. The Madras accounts of the business would have shown clearly whether the payment of the premia caused detriment to the family funds, and whether Selvarajulu intended to treat the policy amounts as assets of the joint family. D.W. 5, Ramanathan Chettiar, was the cashier of the Madras branch of the business. He deposed in general terms that the premia were paid by cheques out of the family business, and that Krishnarajulu had likewise paid premia by cheques from the business funds. The pass books of the banks at Madras were made available to the witness and they contained entries for withdrawal of the amounts paid for the premia. They also contained entries for deposits made from time to time. In cross-examination the witness stated that there were two bank accounts in Madras, one with the State Bank of India and the other with the Chartered Bank. He swore that the State Bank account though it stood in the name of Selvarajulu was not a personal account, but was a business account. Similarly the Chartered Bank account in the name of Selvarajulu Chetty was a business account. He swore that the State Bank account though it stood in the name of Selvarajulu was not a personal account, but was a business account. Similarly the Chartered Bank account in the name of Selvarajulu Chetty was a business account. This witness asserted that Krishnarajulu and Daskhinamurthi were also at times operating on this account which stood in the name of Selvarajulu, but he could not support the above assertion by producing the counterfoils of the cheques, which must have been certainly retained in the Madras office of the business. It is unlikely that the bank would have permitted any person other than Selvarajulu to withdraw amounts standing in his name. The same witness stated that the payment towards insurance premia were debited to the insurance account kept by the business. It therefore becomes important to verify this latter statement which, in present context will be even more important than the withdrawal of the monies from the banking account of Selvarajulu for payment of insurance premia. If such debits had been made, in the insurance account, it will have significance for the purpose of showing whether the payments were treated as involving detriment to the business funds or were adjusted to personal drawings. Without this essential item of evidence, it cannot be concluded that the insurance premia were paid out of the joint family funds, in the sense of amounting to detriment to those funds, and to justify the policy amounts being construed as joint family assets. The duty lay upon the first defendant to produce the accounts of the business at the Madras branch but he has failed to do so. We are, therefore, constrained to draw the conclusion that the policy amounts belong to the plaintiff as the heir of Selvarajulu. Further, in the absence of evidence to show that the premia were paid with detriment to the joint family funds, there will be also no justification for deducting the premia paid from the policy amounts. The decree in favour of the plaintiff will, therefore, be for the full policy amounts which total up to Rs. 1,32,416. The next item for consideration is the liability for jewels. The relief in regard to jewels is stated in paragraph 16 (d) of the plaint thus: — “1. One diamond addigai of 22 cts. worth Rupees thirty thousand. 2. One gold oddyanam pendants with precious stones worth about Rupees four 3. 1,32,416. The next item for consideration is the liability for jewels. The relief in regard to jewels is stated in paragraph 16 (d) of the plaint thus: — “1. One diamond addigai of 22 cts. worth Rupees thirty thousand. 2. One gold oddyanam pendants with precious stones worth about Rupees four 3. Two diamond rings now worth about Rupees three thousand. 4. Gold sandalwood cup. 5. Gold rosewater sprinkler. } Rupees nine thousand five hundred. 6. Gold plate of the value of 160 sovereigns now worth Rupees eight thousand. 7. One pair of ear-rings with diamonds 15 cts. now worth about Rupees thirty thousand. 8. One ring set with diamonds of 8 cts. worth about Rupees fifteen thousand. 9. One gold watch chain with pendant set with stones worth about Rupees four thousand five hundred. 10. Jewels belonging to the plaintiff which were in the custody of the late Dakshinamurthy Chettiar- (i) One diamond thali billai set with diamonds now worth about Rupees twenty thousand. (ii) One diamond set vankey set with 8 cts. diamonds worth Rupees ten thousand. (iii) One forehead wear-set with diamonds worth Rupees three thousand.” Out of these jewels the decree gave relief for all the items. However Items 10 (i) and 10 (ii) and Item 2 were found to have been given to one Palaniswami Mudaliar P.W. 2, who deposited them into Court. These items were directed to be handed over to the plaintiff. In regard to the rest of the jewels, the learned Judge gave a decree against the contesting defendants either for returning the jewels or in default to pay their value as estimated in the decree, namely, Rupees one lakh and three thousand with interest from the date of the decree till the date of payment. In regard to the jewels mentioned in paragraph 16 (d) of the plaint, the plaintiff asserted that Items 1, 2 and 3 were her mother’s sridhana jewels, that Items 4 5 and 6 were made out of sovereigns presented to the plaintiff at her ear-boring ceremony and belonged to her, that Item 10 also belonged to her and that Items 7 8 and 9 belonged to her father having been worn by him. The defendants did not deny the existence of these jewels or their value. The defendants did not deny the existence of these jewels or their value. Their defence was that the jewels were the properties of the joint family, and that, therefore, the plaintiff could not claim them They also set up a plea of limitation, assuming that the jewels belonged to the family More specifically Kuppammal pleaded in her written statement filed on 2nd January, 1954 (that date she was alive), that the family had large jewels and heir-looms and that several sets of jewellery were made for each member of the family. The jewels which the plaintiff’s mother was wearing and the jewels which the plaintiff herself had been wearing, had all been taken away by the plaintiff and were with her. But the jewels mentioned in paragraph 16 (d) of the plaint were not the sridhana properties of the plaintiff’s mother, but were joint family jewels. The ear-rings and the watch chain shown as Selvarajulu Chetty’s jewels were in existence even from the time of Ratnavelu Chetty and therefore they were joint family jewels. The plaintiff’s contention was that till the death of Dakshina-murthi in 1951 she was sharing the same house with him, that the twelve items of jewels mentioned in the plaint were always kept in his possession for the sake of safe custody, that she was allowed to use them on festive, marriage or other occasions, that they were handed over back to Dakshmamurthi for safe custody, and that they were kept in an iron-safe in Madras, and also at Pondicherry. Some of the jewels which were brought to Madras were not taken back to Pondicherry because of difficulty over customs. During the pendency of the suit an inventory was taken by a Commissioner, who visited the residence of the parties. The details of this inventory show that several ladies of the family kept only articles of no great value in their own almirahs. Such articles were plainly those which they would require for their ordinary use. But the really valuable jewels were not kept in these almirahs. This would support the case of the plaintiff that her own valuable jewels were entrusted to her father’s paternal uncle Dakshinamurthi for safe custody. When her mother died followed shortly afterwards by her father, the plaintiff was only about ten years old. But the really valuable jewels were not kept in these almirahs. This would support the case of the plaintiff that her own valuable jewels were entrusted to her father’s paternal uncle Dakshinamurthi for safe custody. When her mother died followed shortly afterwards by her father, the plaintiff was only about ten years old. She immediately passed under the protection of Dakshinamaurthi and his wife Until Dakshinamurthi died, the plaintiff was treated with great affection as a member of his household. It is, therefore quite likely, that the costly items of jewels mentioned in the plaint were in the safe-keeping of Dakshinamurthi. We are also not able to accept the contention of the first defendant that the plaintiff’s mother had no sridhana jewels of her own and that such jewels as she wore on festive occasions were jewels given to her from the stock of family jewels. There are photo-graphs taken of the plaintiff and other ladies of the household and they show that the ladies used to wear fairly elaborate items of jewellery as are usually worn by Hindu ladies belonging to an affluent family. The family of Selvaraj in the lifetime of Selvaraju became a very rich one, and it is in consonance with the inference deductible from these photographs that the ladies were adorned with valuable jewels like diamond ear-rings, oddiyanam and addigai which are among the items mentioned in the plaint schedule. As pointed out by the learned Judge, though Krishnarajulu died his widow Anasuya is alive, and she would have been a proper witness to speak to the jewels belonging to her sister-in-law, namely, plaintiff’s mother. She could also give evidence as to the alleged practice of giving the plaintiff’s mother the family jewels to wear only on festive occasions. The learned Judge also has pointed out, in our opinion rightly, that the valuable jewels would have been made between the period 1926-38 when the family fortunes were at their peak, and that the accounts maintained at that period would show the expenditure on the making of the jewels. The omission of the first defendant to produce these accounts will lead to an adverse inference regarding the claim that the jewels mentioned in the plaint were jewels made only to be kept as joint family properties. Jayalakshmi, wife of the first defendant, is the sister of Selvarajulu. The omission of the first defendant to produce these accounts will lead to an adverse inference regarding the claim that the jewels mentioned in the plaint were jewels made only to be kept as joint family properties. Jayalakshmi, wife of the first defendant, is the sister of Selvarajulu. As sister-in-law she woud be certainly aware of the jewels belonging to the plaintiff’s mother, and there is no explanation -why this lady has not been examined by the defendants. As regards the jewels worn by Selvarajulu, items 7, 8 and 9 in the plaint schedule which account for nearly Rs 50 000 of the suit claim, there is no proof of the first defendant’s contention that these jewels belonged to Ratnavelu and therefore were family jewels. The photograph of Selvarajulu show that he was interested in adorning his person with diamond ear-rings and so on. This is consistent with the habits of the people in this part of the country where prosperous menfolk also wear jewellery like diamond ear-rings finger-rings and even neck chains of gold. P.W. 2, Palaniswami Mudaliar, to whom three of the jewels had been entrusted by Dakshinamurthi seems to be a straightforward and reliable witness. He has referred to the photograph M.O. 4 of Selvaraj. He also has referred to the practice of Selvaraj, Krishnarajulu and Dakshinamurthi in wearing diamond ear-rings made up of high class diamonds of a large size. We may also remark in this connection that there is evidence to show that Dakshinamurthi was dealing in diamonds and it is not unlikely that advantage was taken of this circumstance for all the members of the family to adorn themselves with valuable diamond jewellery as personal ornaments. The learned Judge in the course of the judgment has taken into consideration the evidence in regard to each item of jewellery and given his reasons for coming to the conclusion in favour of the plaintiff. We are in agreement with his conclusion in this respect. There is one other circumstance, which will be necessary to be mentioned regarding the valuation. We are in agreement with his conclusion in this respect. There is one other circumstance, which will be necessary to be mentioned regarding the valuation. Though in paragraph 16 (d) of the plaint the value of the jewels worn by Selvarajulu, items 7, 8 and 9 has been given as Rupees thirty thousand Rupees fifteen thousand and Rupees four thousand five hundred respectively, in paragraph 17 of the plaint it is alleged that Selvarajulu Chetty was called a Diamond King, and that he had worn on his person a pair of very costly diamond ear-rings, gold chain, watch and chain and diamond rings, worth about Rupees twenty thousand. It appears to us that this valuation of Rupees twenty thousand was intended to cover the value of all the personal jewels of Selvarajulu Chetti, and not the value of the last mentioned item, namely, the diamond rings alone. We entertain a genuine doubt, therefore, in regard to the correct valuation of items 7, 8 and 9 the personal jewels of Selvarajulu, whether the claim made in paragraph 16 (d) about their value, whose total comes to Rupees forty-nine thousand five hundred or the claim made in paragraph 17 of the plaint, namely, Rupees twenty thousand should be accepted. We have also to point out that the plaintiff did not examine any witness to prove the value of the jewels. The learned Judge has given his decision about the value solely on the ground that the first defendant had not contested the value of the jewels set forth in the plaint. In view of the above discrepancy, we are of the opinion that it will be proper to restrict the value of items 7, 8 and 9 in the schedule to the amount of Rupees twenty thousand stated in paragraph 17 of the plaint. Therefore, the decree passed for the value of the jewels in the alternative will be reduced by the difference of amount of Rupees twenty-nine thousand five hundred. There was finally a claim on behalf of the plaintiff (the respondent) that Dakshinamurthi and Krishnarajulu had drawn the insurance monies on 25th September, 1939, but the lower Court had not given any interest on these amounts from that date, and that this should be provided for. There was finally a claim on behalf of the plaintiff (the respondent) that Dakshinamurthi and Krishnarajulu had drawn the insurance monies on 25th September, 1939, but the lower Court had not given any interest on these amounts from that date, and that this should be provided for. This is one of the grounds urged in the plaintiff’s appeal, Original Side Appeal No. 49 of 1960, but it will be considered here as it arises out of the insurance amounts. After her father’s death in 1938 the plaintiff was living in Dakshinamurthi’s family till 1952 and all her requirements of education, food and other expenses were met in a liberal scale during this period by Dakshinamurthy. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the grant of interest on this amount from, the date of plaint would be adequate to meet the needs of the case. Subject to the above the appeal will be dismissed in other respects with costs. P.R.N. ------------ O.S. Appeal No. 49 of 1960 allowed; O.S. Appeal No. 6 of 1960 dismissed subject to modification of decree in part.