Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant and it arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for partition. Plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant are brothers, plaintiff No. 2 being the son of plaintiff No. 1 The plaintiffs claimed half share in the immovable properties mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint and the same share in the movable properties mentioned in Schedule 2. The suit was decreed in full by the trial Court. But on appeal by the defendant, the trial Courts decree has been modified and the plaintiffs suit has succeeded only with respect to the immoveable properties mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint. The Court of appeal below has held that existence of the movable properties mentioned in Schedule 2 has not been proved and the suit has failed with respect to that. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: According to the plaintiffs case, Bishun Sao, father of plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant, had died in a state of jointness with his sons and the sons had come in possession of the joint family properties. There was an ancestral house which the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant sold away. It is alleged that the plaintiffs and the defendant purchased the lands and the house under partition. in the name of the defendant, who was the Karta of the joint family. Thereafter, it is alleged that the plaintiffs and the defendant were in possession of all ioint family properties including immovable and movable properties. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant, under the influence of his wife, was acting against the interest of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit for partition had to be instituted. The defendants case in his pleading is to the effect that the family had only some share in the ancestral house on survey plot No. 139 and that had been sold away by the defendant and plaintiff No. 1 to their co-sharers in 1939. It is alleged that the defendant had gone away to Coochbehar and other places and having earned for sometime there, he returned home and did his own business. It is alleged that the plaintiffs had no concern with the defendants business and the defendant had purchased the properties mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint with his own earnings. It is alleged that the defendant had gone away to Coochbehar and other places and having earned for sometime there, he returned home and did his own business. It is alleged that the plaintiffs had no concern with the defendants business and the defendant had purchased the properties mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint with his own earnings. In substance, the defendants case is that the immovable properties sought to be partitioned were exclusive properties of the defendant and are not joint family properties. The existence of the alleged joint family movable properties was denied. It was also denied that the defendant was the Karta of the family, as alleged by the plaintiffs. 3. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit, held that the immovable properties were joint family properties of the parties and they were not self-acquired properties of the defendant. The question of partition of movable properties does not arise at present in this appeal filed by the defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge has also concurred with the trial Court in holding that the immovable properties in this litigation were joint properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even on the footing that the parties to this litigation were joint, there was no presumption that the family had joint family properties and it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove sufficient nucleus of joint family property from the income of which the disputed properties could have been purchased. It is contended that no Court has come to any conclusion that the family had sufficient nucleus, even on the assumption that the members were joint, from the income of which the disputed properties, standing in the name of the defendant, could have been purchased. I do not think that there is any substance in this contention. It is clear that both the Courts below have come to the conclusion on the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, that, the disputed properties had been purchased from the income of the joint family business, the parties having been goldsmiths. I do not think that there is any substance in this contention. It is clear that both the Courts below have come to the conclusion on the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, that, the disputed properties had been purchased from the income of the joint family business, the parties having been goldsmiths. After dealing with the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, in paragraph 15 of the judgment the learned Subordinate Judge has mentioned the substance of the evidence given by Kamala Sao, plaintiff No. 1 (P. W. 8), to the effect that the family had Sonari joint business and the properties were purchased with the joint income. Therefore, no question of the theory of sufficient nucleus arises. There is direct evidence given as to the source of income from which the disputed properties had been purchased and that evidence has been accepted by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiffs had been able to prove that the family had been joint and that the immoveable properties in dispute had been purchased from the joint fund. Therefore, on this point, it is not possible to permit the learned counsel to reagitate questions of fact. Learned Counsel for the appellant has, then, argued that the Court of appeal below has misread Exhibits 1 series and also Exhibit 2. Reference has been made in this context to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. I do not see what errors have been committed by the learned Subordinate Judge, even after looking at Exhibit 1 specifically. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show how it has been misread. According to the learned counsel, the evidence given by the plaintiffs witnesses regarding jointness of the family, does not fulfil the conditions of Sec. 50 of the Evidence Act. In my opinion, this contention is also not valid. Both the plaintiffs have been examined as witnesses and it was open to them to give evidence regarding jointness of the parties and to prove that the immoveable properties in dispute had been purchased from joint funds. Therefore, in my opinion, all the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant fail. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.