CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the common Judgment and Decree of the lower appellate Court i. e. , the court of the Civil Judge, Tumkur. Regular appeal No. 73/1985 was filed by the plaintiff confined to the finding of the trial Court holding that item Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 were not joint family properties. That has been reversed by the lower appellate Court in the common Judgment passed. The appellants in this Court in both the appeals are the defendants 1 and ( 2 ) THE respondents in these appeals arethe plaintiffs in O. S. No. 176/1981 on the file of the Principal Munsiff at Tumkur. In the course of this Judgment, the parties will be referred to by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs brought the suit for partition and possession of the suit schedule properties claiming them to be the ancestral properties. They have stated that the defendants 1 and 2 are their brothers and they constituted a joint undivided Hindu family. The claim of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants on the ground that not all of the suit properties were their ancestral but some of the properties were self-acquired properties. Defendan-1 claimed that half an acre of land, one of the items in the suit schedule properties, he obtained occupancy rights under Sec. 48a of the Karnataka Land reforms Act and therefore it could not be treated as property of the joint family. ( 3 ) THE trial Court as well as thelower appellate Court have gone on the presumption that the properties owned by the undivided joint Hindu family to be joint family properties unless persons contending otherwise demonstrated that it was their self-acquired properties by independent evidence. Admittedly, some of the properties were ancestral and therefore acquisition of properties subsequently by defendants 1 and 2 unless it was proved it was so acquired by their skill and their own earnings, it must be presumed to be out of the joint family nucleus. ( 4 ) MR. S. N. Keshava Murthy, however, drew myattention to the commentary on Hindu Law by Mulla, 15th Edition at page, 305, which has been referred to by the trial Court. That passage reads as follows : "the existence of some nucleus is not the sole criterion to impress the subsequent acquisitions with family character. ( 4 ) MR. S. N. Keshava Murthy, however, drew myattention to the commentary on Hindu Law by Mulla, 15th Edition at page, 305, which has been referred to by the trial Court. That passage reads as follows : "the existence of some nucleus is not the sole criterion to impress the subsequent acquisitions with family character. What is to be shown is that the family had as a result of the nucleus sufficient surplus income from which the subsequent acquisitions could be made. Or this may be shown from the nature and relative value of the nucleus itself. " ( 5 ) IN the instant case there is no other evidence except the self-serving testimony of defendent-1 that 'other properties which they claimed to be self- acquired properties were acquired by trade and business. They have not exactly stated from where they had acquired the capital or how they acquired capital to trade and it was not even their case that they used to work as manual labourers and earned wages from which they raised funds which consituted the capital for the trade and business. If they had no other source of income at all except from the joint family properties, then acquisitions made by defendant-1 the kartha of the family must be presumed to be out of the surplus funds in his hands out of the joint family income. If he claimed that the other properties were self-acquired properties, the burden was on him to prove the manner and the source by which he acquired such properties. The nature of the properties or the size of the nucleus itself will be sufficient to absolve the plaintiffs from proving the joint nature of the properly being joint family property. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, the passage relied upon cannot be of any assistance to the appellants. ( 7 ) IT was next contended that the land Tribunal having granted the occupancy rights on the 1st defendant, that half an acre should constitute the self- acquired property and therefore not available for partition. When the kartha of the joint Hindu family acts, he acts not for himself but for the joint family of which he is the kartha. When the kartha of the joint Hindu family acts, he acts not for himself but for the joint family of which he is the kartha. If he acts as a kartha of the joint family in the absence of evidence to the contrary the Court must presume that even the application was made far and on behalf of the joint family. Therefore, on that account also there is no error in the conclusions reached by the trial Court or the lower appellate court. ( 8 ) FOR the above reasons, there is no merit in these appeals and they are rejected. Appeals rejected. --- *** --- .