Judgment : The plaintiff D.Natesan who has lost his case in the trial has filed the appeal. Since he died during the pendency of the appeal his legal representatives have been impleaded as appellants 2 to 4. .2. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers being sons of deceased Dharmalingam Poosari through his first wife Chellammal. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and defendants 5 to 7 are the daughters of Dharmalingam Poosari through his second wife Kannammal. The plaintiffs case is that Dharmalingam Poosari and his brothers out of their joint family income purchased properties as joint family properties. Under a partition entered into between them on 18. 1944 Dharmalingam got the plaint schedule properties described in the partition deed as ‘A’ schedule as his share. Then Dharmalingam was the joint family Manager of the joint family consisting of himself and the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. 3. The further case of the plaintiff is that taking advantage of Dharmalingam’s old age and loss of vision the defendants 2 to 4 were collecting the entire income from the suit properties and they were appropriating the same for their own benefits. Dharmalingam died intestate on 7. 1977. After the death of Dharmalingam the plaintiff made demands for partition of the suit properties but the defendants were evading. On these grounds the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of his 9/ 48th shares and for mesne profits. .4. The first defendant had no objection for partition. In the written statement filed by the third defendant and adopted by the other defendants it is contended that the suit properties are self-acquired properties of Dharmalingam and not joint family properties as alleged by the plaintiff. The properties covered under the partition deed dated 18. 1944 were not joint family properties belonging to Dharmalingam and his brothers. The suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Dharmalingam. It is then contended that Dharmalingam had executed a registered Will dated 8. 1971, under the said Will out of his properties described in the suit he had bequeathed 36 cents of land to each of the plaintiff and first defendant and they are in possession of the same, and they are not in possession of other properties. It is then contended that Dharmalingam had executed a registered Will dated 8. 1971, under the said Will out of his properties described in the suit he had bequeathed 36 cents of land to each of the plaintiff and first defendant and they are in possession of the same, and they are not in possession of other properties. It is further contended that in view of the fact that if the ancestral house items 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were to be partition the plaintiff and first defendant would get only a small fraction of share and it would be quite useless for them, a family arrangement was agreed to between Dharmalingam Poosari and his sons in the presence of Duraisamy Poosari, Ap-pavoo Poosari and one Jawanthinathan Special Officer of Seshasayee Paper and Boards, Pallipa-layam who was related to the parties, and in that family arrangement it was agreed that in lieu of their share in the ancestral house the plaintiff and first defendant would each get 36 cents in the thope which was the self acquisition of Dharmalingam Poosari. That arrangement took place on the eve of the Will, and as per the said family arrangement provisions were made in the Will. Thus Dharmalingam Poosari was free to deal with the ancestral properties i.e. items 5 to 9 as his own. For these reasons that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit properties. 5. The trial court on consideration of the evidence adduced in the case held that the house items 5 to 9 is ancestral property and excepting that the other items of suit properties are self-acquired properties of Dharmalingam. It further held that there was no blending of self-acquired properties of Dharmalingam with ancestral properties. It further held that Ex.B-1 will is true and valid and it has been executed in pursuance of a family arrangement made between the members of the family. Then it held that the plaintiff and the first defendant knew about Ex.B-1 Will executed by Dharmalingam and in view of the fact that they were allotted each 36 cents in the thope which is self-acquired property of Dharmalingam they cannot claim any share in the other items of properties including the ancestral house. On these findings, in the result, the trial court dismissed the suit. Hence the plaintiff has filed this appeal. 6. On these findings, in the result, the trial court dismissed the suit. Hence the plaintiff has filed this appeal. 6. Mr.T.R.Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff contends that all the suit properties are joint family properties and the finding of the trial court that excepting items 5 to 9 the other items are self-acquired properties of Dharamalingam Poosari is erroneous. He further contends that during the partition under Ex.A-2 dated 18. 1944 between Dharmalingam and others all the properties-ancestral and self-acquired, had been put into the notch pot of the joint family properties and thus even if there was any self acquired properties of Dharmalingam that had acquired the character of joint family properly, and thus at the time of the Will there was no self-acquired property of Dharmalingam. He then contended that there was no family arrangement as alleged and the finding of the trial court that there was such an arrangement is erroneous. He then contended that Dharmalingam had no right to execute a Will in respect of the joint family properties even if he had some self-acquired prop-erties and therefore the Will is not valid. For these reasons according to the learned counsel the suit should have been decreed. These are all the points which are to be considered in the appeal. .7. Now, it is common case that Dharmalingam Poosari, Appavoo Poosari, Sankaran Poosari and Duraisamy Poosari had been living as one family in a common house having a common mense until they entered into a partition deed Ex.A-2 dated 18. 1944. Ex.A-1 is a partiton deed dated 21. 1915 which had been entered into between Dharmalingam Poosari and his paternal uncle Sevanthil-ingam Poosari. In that document it has been clearly mentioned that as regards lease lands obtained by Dharmalingam Poosari’s father he (Dharmalingam Poosari) alone will be entitled to it. This would show that there was ancestral nucleus to Dharmalingam Poosari in the form of lease lands. It is not in dispute that subsequent to Ex.A-1 only the properties standing in the name of Dharmalingam had been acquired. The trial court on the reasoning that no lease deed has been produced by the plaintiff did not accept his plea that Dharmalingam had ancestrail nucleus from out of the income of the lease lands. 8. It is not in dispute that subsequent to Ex.A-1 only the properties standing in the name of Dharmalingam had been acquired. The trial court on the reasoning that no lease deed has been produced by the plaintiff did not accept his plea that Dharmalingam had ancestrail nucleus from out of the income of the lease lands. 8. Whatever may be the position, even if the properties in question were the self-acquired properties of Dharmalingam, from the evidence I am clearly of the view that those properties had been thrown into the notch pot of the joint family properties and they have thus acquired the character of joint family properties. Ex.A-2 is a partition deed dated 18. 1944 entered into between Dharmalingam and his brothers Appavoo Poosari, Sankaran Poosari and Duraisamy Poosari. A reading of this document would show that the four brothers had pooled together their ancestral properties and also their self acquired properties for partition. This is clear from the recital. They have divided all the properties both ances- tral and self-acquired into four schedules and allotted the ‘A’ schedule to Dharmalingam, ‘B’ schedule to Appavoo ‘C schedule to Sankaran and ‘D’ schedule to Duraisamy. Along with the properties they have also divided the liabilities. They have also pointed out that the properties allotted to Appavoo is of more value than the property allotted to others and that is because he had been working for the welfare of the family with more responsibilities, and they have further pointed out that considering Dharmalingam’s ‘Jeshta Bagam’ (being the eldest son he has the responsibility of performing the religious ceremonies concerning the deceased ancestors), he has been given properties worth more than ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties allotted to the other two brothers. They have further stated that if there is any property purchased for the joint family in the name of any of the brothers, from the date of this partition deed the four brothers would be entitled to have the properties only according to the shares allotted to them. From these it is manifest that the four brothers threw into the notch- pot all the properties. Joint family properties as well as self-acquired properties, for partitioning them all as belonging to them in common. The intention of the parties to this effect is very clear. From these it is manifest that the four brothers threw into the notch- pot all the properties. Joint family properties as well as self-acquired properties, for partitioning them all as belonging to them in common. The intention of the parties to this effect is very clear. Now the present suit schedule properties are only those properties allotted to Dharmalingam in ‘A’ schedule under the partition deed Ex.A-2. Here it would be useful to refer to the law laid down in Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift Tax, Andhra Pradesh, A.l.R. 1970S.C. 1722: 76 I.T.R. 675. “The separate property of a Hindu co-parcener ceases to be so and acquires the characteristic of a joint family or ancestral property not by any physical mixing with his joint family or ancestral property but by his own volition and intention by his waiving and surrendering his separate rights in it as separate property. The act is a unilateral act”. The trial court failed to consider the effect of Ex.A-2 partition deed as regards the self-acquired property of Dharmalingam Poosari. Instead stating that there is no evidence to show that the self-acquired properties were thrown into the common notch pot, and it has not been in any way stated that Dharmalingam purchased the property in his capacity as joint family manager, the trial court held that there was no blending. Therefore there is no denying the fact that even if the properties purchased by Dharmalingam were self-acquired properties they had been thrown into the common stock, and from then on they are the joint family properties of the family consisting of Dharmalingam and his sons. 9. The next point for consideration is whether Ex.B-1 Will executed by Dharmalingam is valid, and if so what is the effect of it. As regards, the genuineness of the Will the trial court has considered all the relevant evidence and it has come to the conclusion that it is genuine. During the arguments before me also this finding was not seriously disputed. It is a registered Will, and Dharmalingam died six years after that (the Will is dated 8. 1971 and Dharmalingam died on 7. 1977). D.W.3 has been examined as an attestor of the Will and D.W.4 as the identifying witness before the Sub Registrar. They have given clear and cogent evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve them. It is a registered Will, and Dharmalingam died six years after that (the Will is dated 8. 1971 and Dharmalingam died on 7. 1977). D.W.3 has been examined as an attestor of the Will and D.W.4 as the identifying witness before the Sub Registrar. They have given clear and cogent evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve them. Therefore there is no gainsaying that the finding of the trial court that the Will is genuine is correct. 10. Now, as held above, the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. As such Dharmalingam had no right to execute a Will in respect of them. Now the settled law is that a Hindu father, as the manager of the joint family has a right to effect partition not only with regard to his own share in the joint family properties but with regard to the shares of the other members of the family also. The Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment in Kalyani (Dead) by Lrs v. Narayanan and others, (1980)2 S.C.J. 332, has said thus; “A Hindu father joint with his sons and governed by Mitakshara law in contradistinction to other manager of a Hindu undivided family or an ordinary coparcener enjoys the larger power to impose a partition on his sons with himself as well as amongst his sons inter se without their consent”... A reading of Ex.B-1 Will would show that in effect it is a partition of the properties may be the father among his sons. This is strengthened by the fact that it is undeniable that atleast items 5 to 9 house property is ancestral joint family property and the father should know that they cannot be Willed away by him and inspite of it he has executed Ex.B-1. It is further stated in the Will that because he wanted that there should not be any dispute ater his death among the members of his family he wanted to execute that document. It is true that it is mentioned in Ex.B-1 that the properties are his self-acquired properties, but as aforesaid, in fact they are not so and they are all joint family properties. It appears the father wanted these properties to be partitioned among his sons in a particular manner for the reasons stated therein. It is true that it is mentioned in Ex.B-1 that the properties are his self-acquired properties, but as aforesaid, in fact they are not so and they are all joint family properties. It appears the father wanted these properties to be partitioned among his sons in a particular manner for the reasons stated therein. Then a question arises whether a father even though he has a special right to partition the joint family properties, can do so by means of a Will executed by him. The law appears to be that he can do so but with the consent of other members of the family. This is manifest from the statement of law in the above said decision of the Supreme Court Kalyani (Dead) by Lrs. v. Narayanan and others, (1980)2 S.C.J. 332 that, “Even though the father has a right to make a partition of the joint family property in his hand, he has no right to make a partition by Will of joint family property amongst various members of the family except, of course, if it could be made with their consent”. Therefore we have to see if there was consent by the plaintiff and the first defendant for execution of Ex.B-1 Will. In this connection, we have to remember that it is the case of the defendants that becuase if the family house is to be partitioned the plaintiff and the first defendant will get a small portion which would be of no use and therefore there was a family arrangement which was agreed to by them, and that arrangement was on the eve of the Will Ex.B-1, and as per the terms of that family arrangement the Will was executed. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and the first defendant would get only a fraction of the share of the family house which will be of no use to them. D.W.1 Jewanthinathan who is the son of Appavoo Poosari, who is employed as Special Officer in Seshasayee & Co. has testified that there was a family arrangement and he took part in it. This witness being the son of Appavoo Poosari is quite natural witness and he appears to be a respectable man. The trial court also, which has noticed the demeamour of D.W.1 has stated that D.W.I is a respectable person. has testified that there was a family arrangement and he took part in it. This witness being the son of Appavoo Poosari is quite natural witness and he appears to be a respectable man. The trial court also, which has noticed the demeamour of D.W.1 has stated that D.W.I is a respectable person. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination as to why the evidence of this witness should not be believed. Hence as rightly held by the trial court there was a family arrangement and it was in pursuance of it Ex.B-1 will has been executed. Of course D.W.I has stated in his evidence that when Dharmalingam gave 36 cents of thope to each of the plaintiff and first defendant they wanted more but Dharmalingam did not give. This does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff and first defendant did not agree to any family arrangement and they opposed to Ex.B-1 Will. It is seen from the evidence that one Paramasivam Filial had filed a suit as evidenced by Ex.B-12 judgment copy in respect of a portion of 8th item of the present suit schedule properties against the plaintiffs father, and after his death the plaintiff and the defendants were impleaded as legal representatives, and in that suit while the defendants 2 to 4 herein contested it the plaintiff and first defendant remained ex parte. Now the arguments of defendants 2 to 4 that only because the plaintiff and the first defendant had no share in that property under Ex.B-1 Will they did not contest that suit appears to have force. This would show that the plaintiff and the first defendant were aware of the Will Ex.B-1. Ex.B-2 dated 27. 1977 and Ex.B-3 dated 27. 1977 have been filed as application made by the plaintiff and the first defendants before the Sub Registrar for copy of Ex.B-1 Will. There is absoutely no reason to disbelieve or even suspect the genuineness of this document. This also would show that the plaintiff and the first defendant were aware of the Will. What is more, under the Will the first defendant has been appointed as the Managing Trustee of Thiruvaranga Chelli Amman Temple in the place of Dharmalingam after his death, and the plaintiff (P.W.1) admits in his evidence that from the time of the death of his father on 7. 1977 the 1st defendant is acting as the Managing Trustee. What is more, under the Will the first defendant has been appointed as the Managing Trustee of Thiruvaranga Chelli Amman Temple in the place of Dharmalingam after his death, and the plaintiff (P.W.1) admits in his evidence that from the time of the death of his father on 7. 1977 the 1st defendant is acting as the Managing Trustee. This is a strong piece of evidence showing that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant knew about the Will and they had acquiesced in it. A reading of the Will shows that according to the testator the 1st defendant had been educated and married and he is well off doing contract work and he (testator) has also helped him with money and that the plaintiff is a B.A., B.T., graduate and he is employed as a Headmaster in the Government High School, Ambikapuram and he is living happily with his family, and that his (Dharmalingam’s) brother Sankaran Poosari who had no issues has executed a Will in respect of his properties in favour of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff and therefore they would be getting those properties also, and that while so when the2ndde(endant has passed only PUC and is employed defendants 3 and 4 are still to be educated and then married, and considering all these with the intention that all the members of the family must be happy, he wanted to execute the Will. 11. Considering the entire circumstances of the case it appears manifest that it was only in pursuance of the family arrangement, as contended by the contesting defendants, Dharmalingam executed Ex.B-1 Will with the knowledge and with the consent of all the members of the family, and that is in fact a family arrangement. This being the position the plaintiff and the 1st defendant arc bound by that and they cannot revolt against it. 12. Thus, considering I find that the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit. In this view of the matter the appeal is dismissed with costs.