MAHANKALI VENKATACHARI, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant in O. S. No. 128 of 1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, kavali, aggrieved by the judgment and decree made in O. S. No. 128 of 1983, dated 8-2-1994, had preferred the present appeal. ( 2 ) THE respondents herein who were the then minor children and the wife of said mahankali Venkatachari filed the said suit claiming the relief of partition and separate possession of their respective shares and also for maintenance. ( 3 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge, kavali, on the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P. W. I, D. Ws. l to 3 and marked Exs. B-1 to B-3, and on appreciation of evidence available on record, ultimately decreed the suit granting the relief of partition and also granting the relief of maintenance to the wife, the third plaintiff, at Rs. 500/- per month, Rs. 300/- towards clothing per year and Rs. 1,000/- towards separate residence per year and inasmuch as the fourth plaintiff was already married, the relief prayed for by her was negatived. ( 4 ) MR. Srinivas representing Mr. M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant had taken this court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence of P. W. I, d. Ws. l to 3 and also Exs. B-1 to B-3 and would maintain that in the light of the specific stand taken by the appellant as defendant that the sale proceeds of the ancestral property had been utilized for discharge of the debts, even otherwise inasmuch as there is no nexus in between the quantum of sale consideration realized out of the sale of the ancestral nucleus and the property purchased by him, and in the absence of any proof placed by the respondents- plaintiffs in this regard, the plaintiffs cannot succeed and hence, the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained and the decree is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel also while elaborating the submissions had explained the concept of joint family, the concept of coparcenery and the nature of ancestral nucleus, the sale proceeds of the ancestral nucleus and utilization of the sale proceeds for the purpose of purchase, and the nexus to be established in this regard. The learned Counsel also while elaborating the submissions had explained the concept of joint family, the concept of coparcenery and the nature of ancestral nucleus, the sale proceeds of the ancestral nucleus and utilization of the sale proceeds for the purpose of purchase, and the nexus to be established in this regard. The learned Counsel also made an attempt to demonstrate the difference of sale consideration between the sale proceeds of the ancestral nucleus and the purchase of properties by the appellant-defendant. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the recitals in Exs. B-1 and B-2 and the consideration specified therein and in ex. B-3, the receipt and would contend that in the light of the documentary evidence and also the evidence of D. Ws. 2 and 3 supporting the version of D. W. I and also certain admissions by P. W. I regarding discharge of debts and to the maintenance of family, it cannot be said that respondents- plaintiffs were successful in establishing their right to claim partition or maintenance and hence, the appeal may have to be allowed. ( 5 ) PER contra, Mr. Bhim Singh representing Mr. P. Krishna Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, would contend that the evidence of P. W. I is clear and categorical and apart from this aspect even Exs. B-1 and B-2 and the sale consideration therein, if taken into consideration, it would definitely show that sufficient consideration had been realized by the appellant-defendant. The learned counsel also would contend that inasmuch as these acquisitions made by utilizing the sale proceeds of the ancestral nucleus partake the character of the joint family property, the undivided coparceners, the minor sons, would get right by birth and in view of the same suit for partition had been filed, likewise the relief of maintenance had been claimed. The learned Counsel also taken this Court through the findings recorded by the trial Court in this regard and would contend that in the light of the said findings, the trial Court is well justified in decreeing the suit and hence would maintain that this appeal deserves dismissal at the hands of this Court. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the pleadings, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the pleadings, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court. ( 7 ) THE parties would be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant for the purpose of convenience hereinafter. ( 8 ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and also claimed maintenance. The relief of partition was granted by giving 2/3rd share to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the other 1/3rd share to the father of the minor children i. e. , the defendant and also the relief of maintenance had been granted in favour of the third plaintiff, the wife and no doubt the same had been negatived to the fourth plaintiff, the daughter who was already married by then. ( 9 ) IT may be appropriate to have a look at the respective pleadings of the parties. It was pleaded in the plaint as hereunder:"the third plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. The marriage between the third plaintiff and the defendant took place about 20 years ago at Gowravaram village as per Hindu rites, caste, custom and usage. Subsequently, the third plaintiff joined the defendant in his house at chagollu Village in Kandukur Taluk and was rendering conjugal duties to him as a dutiful Hindu wife. The plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 were born out of the wedlock while they were living at Chagollu itself. Subsequently, about 7 years ago the defendant sold all the ancestral property situate in Chagollu village including the ancestral house. The defendant also borrowed some money from his brother-in-law, Kanakarathnachari, the brother of the third plaintiff and shifted his residence to Gowravaram in kavali Taluk. The defendant purchased ac. 4-12-cents of wet land which is shown in the A schedule appended herewith in sambasivapuram Village, hamlet of mungamur. The defendant also constructed a house in Gowravaram Village and began to reside in the same along with the plaintiffs. The defendant sold the house at gowravaram to Kanakarathnachari and shifted his residence to Kavali along with the plaintiffs. The defendant took the house of Gattupalli Venkata Laksbmamma in Janathapet, Kavali for rent and had been staying along with the plaintiffs. While the matter thus stood, unfortunately, the defendant after shifting to Kavali addicted to bad habits and began to live a wayward life. The defendant took the house of Gattupalli Venkata Laksbmamma in Janathapet, Kavali for rent and had been staying along with the plaintiffs. While the matter thus stood, unfortunately, the defendant after shifting to Kavali addicted to bad habits and began to live a wayward life. He is not evincing any interest in the plaintiffs or taking the required interest in cultivating the lands. The defendant used to come to the house whenever he liked and when the third plaintiff questioned the same, the defendant used to beat her. Finally, the defendant stopped to come to the house completely from August, 1980. He stopped even to send any money for the maintenance of the plaintiff. Rent was also not paid to the house owner. Thereupon the house owner demanded the plaintiffs to vacate the house. Having no other go, the third plaintiff along with plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 shifted her residence to her parental house at gowravaram and has been maintained by her mother since then. All the mediations proved futile. Thereupon plaintiffs got a registered notice dated 10-10-1980 issued to the defendant The defendant received the same and sent a reply with all false and frivolous allegations. It is false to state that the defendant sold the lands at chagollu and shifted to Gowravaram at the instance of the third plaintiff. It is also false to state that the defendant barrowed several amounts from several persons in order to purchase the lands and construct the house. He only borrowed some amount from P. Kanakarathnachari, the brother of the third plaintiff. The defendant has no need or necessity to borrow any amount from others. It is not true to state that the third plaintiff under the influence of kanakarathnachari did not like the defendant setting up the family at Kavali she wanted to stay at Gowravaram itself and the defendant did not agree thereto. It is also not true to state that the lands have been leased out that Kanakarathnachari was pressurizing the tenant and was preventing him for cultivating the land and that the defendant questioned the interference of kanakarathnachari. It is also not true to state that the lands have been leased out that Kanakarathnachari was pressurizing the tenant and was preventing him for cultivating the land and that the defendant questioned the interference of kanakarathnachari. It is false to state that kanakarathnachari came to Kavali and at his instance the third plaintiff picked up a big quarrel and Kanakarathnachari and srinivasachari paid the defendant and threatened that they would kill him in case he enter the house again and being afraid of them, the defendant had no other go except to stay away from the house. It is false to state that all the belongings including silver of 10 tulas and gold jewellery worth about 4 sovereigns of die defendant are in the house and he left the house with his wearing apparel only. As stated supra, there were two silver tumblers used for drinking water and as\ the third plaintiff found it very difficult\ to feed die children she sold them and utilized the same for the maintenance of the children. No other silver was in the house. There was no gold at all. The offer made by the defendant to receive the plaintiffs and maintain them is not bona fide. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendant constitute members of a Hindu joint family. The joint family owns immoveable properties as detailed in the plaint A schedule. The little moveable properties, useful utensils were sold by the third plaintiff while living at Kavali and spent the same for the maintenance of the family. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have 2/3rd share in the joint family properties. The family is not indebted to anybody. The joint family lands yield annually not less than 8 putties of molakolukulu paddy. As such there is no need for the defendant to contract any debt for the maintenance of the family. As the defendant is not looking after the cultivation properly and he is also trying to alienate the properties nominally in favour of his friends and partisans, it is no more beneficial to plaintiffs 1 and 2 of keeping the properties joint with the defendant. In view of the above attitude adopted by the defendant, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are constrained to institute this suit for partition and separate possession of 2/3rd share of the plaintiffs in the A schedule properties. In view of the above attitude adopted by the defendant, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are constrained to institute this suit for partition and separate possession of 2/3rd share of the plaintiffs in the A schedule properties. " ( 10 ) THE defendant filed a written statement disputing the fact that the first plaintiff was a minor at the relevant point of time and taking a specific stand that the first plaintiff was a major even by that time. This question need not be specifically adverted to inasmuch as the other parties also had attained majority. It was further pleaded as hereunder:"the defendant belongs to Chagollu Village in Kandukur Taluk He had Ac. 2-00 of dry land which was being cultivated now and then with wet crops. He had also a thatched house. The income from the lands was not sufficient for his needs and there was not sufficient income from his carpentry work in the village. He, therefore, incurred for his family maintenance and due to pressure of creditors he had to sell away the said properties. The third plaintiff also wanted this defendant to shift himself to Gowravaram, nor parental village as the defendant was unable to meet both ends at Chagollu. He got rs. 6,000/- from the sale of lands and rs. 1,500/- by sale of house at Chagollu in the year 1974 with these amounts he discharged his debts and a small amount was left With the said balance of the amount which was about Rs. 1,500/- he came over to Gowravaram Village in Kavali taluk. He purchased a site for about rs. 3,000/- by borrowing the balance from his brother-in-law Kanakarathnachari, brother of the third plaintiff. He also borrowed from others and purchased the plaint schedule lands for Rs. 20,000/- on 12-9-1974 under a registered sale deed from Madarametla Venkata Rami Reddy and others. After the defendant settled at gowravaram Village, the defendant s brother-in-law Kanakarathnachari began giving him trouble and interfere in his carpentry work in the village and also domestic affairs. The defendant had to leave the village in frustration. The defendant and therefore, shifted himself to Kavali for better living. The defendant also sold away the house constructed by him which costs about Rs. 15,000/- in total for Rs. 11,000/- only to Kanakarathnachari towards dues to him. The defendant had to leave the village in frustration. The defendant and therefore, shifted himself to Kavali for better living. The defendant also sold away the house constructed by him which costs about Rs. 15,000/- in total for Rs. 11,000/- only to Kanakarathnachari towards dues to him. He was not prepared to take the house in full discharge of the amount due to him. A balance of rs. 1,300/- still remained due to him and he took a pronote for this amount in favour of his nominee Vamireddy Obul reddy. The suit schedule land was leased out by the defendant to Narasimhulu of sambasivapuram Village for a mathka of 2 putties and 8 tooms at a rate of 12 tooms per acre. He is also one of the creditors of the defendant who advanced money for purchase of lands. The defendant still owes about Rs. 25,000/- including interest to others from whom he had borrowed for purchase of lands. The borrowings are mentioned in the reply notice issued by him to a notice sent on behalf of the plaintiffs. In the said reply notice the surname and description of Venkatachari is mistake for Alluru Venkatachary from whom the defendant, borrowed Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of land. The lands have been purchased by the defendant with a negligible portion of the proceeds of the ancestral property at Chagollu. The bulk of the consideration for purchase of lands has been from the borrowing from others. The land, therefore, constituted self-acquired property of the defendant In this view of the matter, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have no share therein. On account of the harassment caused to the defendant at the instance of kanakarathnachari, even after he shifted to kavali the defendant is forced to leave the house and reside in the house of his brother, about a week prior to the notice sent by the defendant the plaintiffs herein and Kanakarathnachari took away all the samans from the house and went away to gowravaram Village after vacating the house. The third plaintiff has always been particular to stay with her mother and brother. It is against her Counsel that the defendant shifted to Kavali and expressed himself strongly against her visiting gowravaram as Kanakarathnachari has been responsible for the defendant leaving the village and eventually selling the house to him. The third plaintiff has always been particular to stay with her mother and brother. It is against her Counsel that the defendant shifted to Kavali and expressed himself strongly against her visiting gowravaram as Kanakarathnachari has been responsible for the defendant leaving the village and eventually selling the house to him. The defendant had never any occasion to get into bad company and his character and reputation have never been nothing but respectable. The allegations made against his character are wild unfounded and uncalled her. To find a cause of action for the suit and further harassing the allegations have been invented. The defendant has been undertaking carpentry work at Kavali and has always been making his best endeavour to maintain and support his family. There is no need for him to desert his family and children. It is Kanakarathnachari that has become the villain of the peace who was brought about a separation between the defendant and his family. Their plan appears to be that the defendant should be reduced to a non-entity living under her goodwill at Gowravaram Village. Due to resentment against this attitude the defendant had to leave Gowravaram Village for earning to Kavali much to the chagrin of the plaintiffs and Kanakarathnachari. The allegations contra to the above in the plaint are not true and correct The allegations in para-3 of the plaint attacking the character of this defendant are totally false and invented and are designed to prejudice the case of the defendant in the Court This defendant is by nature and temperament calm going and he is not a match to the viles of Kanakarathnachari who is a spiteful person and intent to destroy the family and peace of the family of defendant. The defendant has been in his dealings or behaviour and never addicted to any bad habits. There is no need or occasion to beat third plaintiff or not evincing any interest to the plaintiffs. All his daily earnings, he was putting into the hands of the third plaintiff. This defendant never kept out the timings in visiting his house after the days work was over. While so kanakarathnachari visited the house and instigated the third plaintiff to pick up quarrel with the defendant and kanakarathnachari and first plaintiff beat the defendant and they threatened that if he enters the house again he would be killed. This defendant never kept out the timings in visiting his house after the days work was over. While so kanakarathnachari visited the house and instigated the third plaintiff to pick up quarrel with the defendant and kanakarathnachari and first plaintiff beat the defendant and they threatened that if he enters the house again he would be killed. The defendant therefore went away from the house and was staying in mahankali Venkatachari s house, his cousin brother at Kavali. All the belongings in the house including gold and silver of this defendant were taken away from the house by plaintiffs, Kanakarathnachari after vacating the house. The plaintiffs are staying at Gowravaram in the house of Kanakarathnachari. The conduct of the plaintiffs at the instigation of Kanakarathnachari has been unbecoming and resulted in disruption and well being of the family. On account of the attitude of the plaintiffs the defendant for no fault of his, has not only been deprived his family life but also his children. The first plaintiff was studying intermediate while staying with the defendant has not prosecuted his studies and plaintiffs 2 and 4 have been neglected. The reasons mentioned for vacating the house by plaintiffs at Kavali are not due to house rent not being paid by the defendant but the house owner demanded the defendant to vacate the house. For the registered notice the defendant duly sent a reply and states that the contents of the notice are true and may be referred to the same as part and parcel of this written statement but for the mistake stated above. As already stated the plaint schedule lands are purchased by borrowing from others by his own earning. The defendant has been able to repay small amounts and the bulk of the liabilities borrowed for the purchase of lands is still outstanding. The defendant submits that there are no joint family funds from out of which plaint schedule properties are purchased. Thus, the plaint schedule properties are the self acquisition of the defendant It is not true that the movables and utensils have been sold by the third plaintiff for the maintenance of the family. It is not true to say that plaintiffs 1 and 2 have any share. It is not true to say that the defendant has no debts. The tenant pays 2 putties and 8 tooms at the rate of 12 tooms per acre. It is not true to say that plaintiffs 1 and 2 have any share. It is not true to say that the defendant has no debts. The tenant pays 2 putties and 8 tooms at the rate of 12 tooms per acre. It is false to say that the defendant gets 8 putties of molakolukulu paddy. The maktha is paid on the variety of crop raised. As the tank is rainfed, during some years makth was not paid when there is failure of crop. During 1982-83 no maktha was paid due to drought. A portion of the maktha received is utilized for discharging the debts and for his maintenance. It is not true that the defendant deserted and discharged the plaintiffs. On the other hand the third plaintiff and others deserted the defendant This defendant is not liable to pay any maintenance as the plaintiffs are guilty of desertion. As the third plaintiff wilfully deserted the defendant and has not shown any concern to live with him the defendant having waited for reasonable period filed O. P. No. 26 of 1984 on the file of this Court for dissolution of marriage. Apart from that the third plaintiff already filed O. P. No. 117/81 on the file of this Court for dissolution of marriage which was dismissed. It is true that the defendant gets Rs. 15/- per day when carpentry work is available and there will be work generally for about 10 or 15 days in a month. The demands of the plaintiffs for maintenance, clothing etc. , are totally exaggerated and have no relationship to their station in life. The defendant is only an artisan. The third plaintiff after going to her brother is working as Coolie in the fields. This defendant submits that he is not liable to pay any maintenance and in any case any maintenance is awarded the defendant cannot pay more than Rs. 50/- altogether. The claims for maintenance includes clothing and residence. " ( 11 ) ON the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the trial Court settled the following issues:"1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entided to 2/3rd share in the plaint A schedule property?2. Whether the plaintiffs 3 and 4 were, entided to the reliefs prayed for by them?3. Whether the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are entided for creation of charge over the l/3rd share of the defendant?4. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entided to 2/3rd share in the plaint A schedule property?2. Whether the plaintiffs 3 and 4 were, entided to the reliefs prayed for by them?3. Whether the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are entided for creation of charge over the l/3rd share of the defendant?4. Whether the plaintiffs are entided to future profits i. e. , from the date for the suit?5. Whedier the partition prayed for the benefit of the minor second plaintiff?6. To what relief?" ( 12 ) ON behalf of the plaintiffs, P. W. I, the mother of the other plaintiffs and the wife of the defendant was examined and on behalf of the defendant, D. Ws. l to 3 were examined and Exs. B-1 to B-3 were marked. ( 13 ) IN the light of the submissions made in elaboration by both the Counsel, the following points for consideration arise in the present appeal:1. Whether the decree for partition granted by the trial Court granting 2/ 3rd share to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the plaint schedule properties to be confirmed or is liable to be set aside?2. Whether the maintenance granted in favour of the third plaintiff by the decree of the trial Court to be confirmed or is liable to bet set aside?3. If so, to what relief the parties are entitled to?points 1 and 2: ( 14 ) BOTH these points can be answered together, for the reason that the third plaintiff, the wife of the defendant and the mother of the then minor children alone was examined as P. W. I. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. ( 15 ) P. W. 1 deposed that the native place of her husband was Chagollu Village in prakasam District, she joined her husband and lived together and she begot plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4. P. W. I also deposed that her husband owned Ac. 2-00 of wet land and house at Chagollu Village which were his ancestral properties. She further deposed that about 13 years back they migrated to gowaravaram. The land in Chagollu was sold by her husband for Rs. 28,000/- and house for Rs. 10,000/- before migrating to gowaravaram. She also deposed that her husband purchased Ac. 4-12 cents of wet land in Mungamuru Village limits which was shown in the plaint A schedule. She further deposed that about 13 years back they migrated to gowaravaram. The land in Chagollu was sold by her husband for Rs. 28,000/- and house for Rs. 10,000/- before migrating to gowaravaram. She also deposed that her husband purchased Ac. 4-12 cents of wet land in Mungamuru Village limits which was shown in the plaint A schedule. P. W. 1 also deposed that her husband constructed a terraced house at Gowaravaram and her husband also borrowed some amount from her brother - K. Rathanamachari for construction of a house at Gowaravaram. P. W. I further deposed that they stayed at gowaravaram for two years and later on they shifted to Kavali and her husband was working as carpenter. They shifted their residence to Kavali with the hope that her husband would get more work at kavali. She also deposed that her husband sold the terraced house situated at gowaravaram to her brother. Her husband was able to get more carpentry work and he was earning Rs. 30/- to 40/ -. P. W. I also deposed that her husband was not regular, he was not coming to the house promptly and properly, he was not giving money for the household expenses, she was pledging some of the house hold articles for the livelihood and that she also sold some silver articles. This witness was across-examined at length. No doubt several suggestions were put and several questions relating to the details of the consideration which the husband received by the sale proceeds also had been elicited in the course of cross-examination. ( 16 ) D. W. 1 deposed that he had Ac. 2-00 of land at Chagollu, he was residing in a thatched house, he was getting one putty of paddy whenever it was irrigated, the income from his land was not sufficient income and that he sold the said land and thatched house for Rs. 6,000/- and rs. 1,500/- respectively. This witness also deposed that out of the sale proceeds he discharged the loan, the remaining amount was Rs. 1,500/-, he borrowed some amount from his brother-in-law and purchased house site for Rs. 3,000/ -. He further deposed that he borrowed some more money from his brother-in-law and built a house in the said site. He borrowed about rs. 13,000/- from his brother-in-law and from some others he borrowed Rs. 25,000/- and purchased site at Chagollu. 1,500/-, he borrowed some amount from his brother-in-law and purchased house site for Rs. 3,000/ -. He further deposed that he borrowed some more money from his brother-in-law and built a house in the said site. He borrowed about rs. 13,000/- from his brother-in-law and from some others he borrowed Rs. 25,000/- and purchased site at Chagollu. His wife also was having knowledge about debts and he borrowed money from Venkatanarasimha kondapanaidu, Peda Venkaiah Naidu, malakondaiah, Subbarao and some others and he gave lands on lease to one narasimhulu. This witness also deposed that the brother of his wife was responsible for filing the suit and he had given several details relating to the sale proceeds and also the income and other details. In cross- examination he denied several suggestions in this regard. In substance the stand taken by D. W. 1 is that the sale proceeds of the ancestral nucleus had been utilized for discharging debts and that the properties acquired by him are by borrowing amounts and hence these are self acquired properties. For this purpose D. W. I, the defendant, also examined D. W. 2 and D. W. 3. ( 17 ) D. W. 2, a resident of Singarayakonda deposed that D. W. 1 is his maternal aunt s son and that D. W. I had Ac. 2-00 of ancestral property and D. W. I sold it to discharge debts and he learnt that D. W. I acquired some property by borrowing money and borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from him for buying property. He further deposed that d. W. I paid Rs. 5,000/- and the balance of rs. 5,000/- is to be paid and that D. W. I expressed his inability. He also deposed certain other family details. This witness was cross-examined. ( 18 ) D. W. 3 deposed that D. W. I had ac. 2. 00 of wet land rain fed and D. W. I sold it to clear off the debts. He further deposed that they are the tenants of D. W. 1 and the rent was being paid per year. He also deposed about certain other details and this witness was cross-examined. 2. 00 of wet land rain fed and D. W. I sold it to clear off the debts. He further deposed that they are the tenants of D. W. 1 and the rent was being paid per year. He also deposed about certain other details and this witness was cross-examined. ( 19 ) AT the out set, it can be stated that though no documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the plaintiffs and only the wife of the defendant, the third plaintiff, was examined as P. W. I, there is some evidence on record, which was produced by the defendant i. e. , Exs. B-1 and B-2. Apart from these documents, Ex. B-3, the receipt for Rs. 16,000/- in favour of the defendant also had been marked. Apart from this aspect of the matter, while mentioning the creditors from whom D. W. I borrowed certain amounts, the name of d. W. 2 had not been mentioned, several other names had been mentioned. But none of them had been examined for the reasons best known to the defendant. Be that as it may, it is suffice to state that there is some evidence available on record that the ancestral nucleus of about Ac. 2. 00 of land which was available to the family of the defendant was sold by the defendant. The character of that property as ancestral is not in controversy. Even on a careful scrutiny of the dates when the sale proceeds had been acquired by sale of the ancestral nucleus and the purchases made by him and in view of the short gap, definitely it can be inferred that the sale proceeds had been utilized for the purpose of purchasing plaint A schedule properties. No other inference can be drawn. It is no doubt true that the wife had given an exaggerated version relating to the sale consideration. Much comment had been made in this regard. It is also true that the consideration which had been acquired from the ancestral nucleus is something low when compared to the consideration which had been utilized by the defendant in purchasing plaint A schedule properties. By that itself it cannot be said these properties would not partake the character of the ancestral nature in the light of the evidence available on record. By that itself it cannot be said these properties would not partake the character of the ancestral nature in the light of the evidence available on record. ( 20 ) STRONG reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in g. Narayana Raju v. Chamaraju, AIR 1968 SC 1276 , wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the aspects of joint family in Hindu Law and when the self acquired property of coparcener becomes joint family property held as follows:"we pass on to consider the alternative argument put forward on behalf of the appellant namely, that even if the business of Ambika Stores was started as a separate business of Munisivami Raju, it became converted at a subsequent stage into joint family business. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the business of ambika Stores was thrown by Muniswami raju into the common stock with the intention of abandoning all separate claims to it and therefore the business claims to it and therefore the business of Ambika stores lost its character of a separate property and was impressed with the character of joint family property. It is a well established doctrine of Hindu Law that property which was originally self- acquired may become joint property if it has been voluntarily thrown by the coparcener into joint stock with the intention of abandoning all separate claims upon it The doctrine has been repeatedly recognized by the Judicial Committee (See Hurpurshad v. Sheo Dayal, (1876) 3 Ind app 259 (PC) and Lal Bahadur v. Kanhaiah lal, (1907) 34 Ind App 65 (PC ). But the question whether the coparcener has done so or not is entirely a question of fact to be decided in the light of all the circumstances of the case. It must be established that there was a clear intention on the part of the coparcener to waive his separate rights and such an intention will not be inferred merely from acts which may have been done from kindness or affection (See the decision in Lala muddun Gopal v. Khikhindu Koer, (1891) 18 app 9 (PC ). For instance, in Naina Pillai v. Daivanai Ammal, AIR 1936 Mad. For instance, in Naina Pillai v. Daivanai Ammal, AIR 1936 Mad. 177, wherein a series of documents self-acquired property was described and dealt with as ancestral joint family property was not sufficient but an intention of the coparcener must be shown to waive his claims with full knowledge of his right to it as his separate property. The important point to keep in mind is that the separate property of a Hindu coparcener ceases to be his separate property and acquires the characteristics of his joint family or ancestral property, not by mere act of physical mixing with his joint family or ancestral property, but by his own volition and intention, by his waiving or surrendering his special right in it as separate property. A man s intention can be discovered only from his words or from his acts and conduct. When his intention with regard to his separate property is not expressed in words, we must seek for it in his acts and conduct But it is the intention that we must seek in every case, the acts and conduct being no more than evidence of the intention. In the present case, the High court has examined the evidence on the part of Muniswami Raju to throw the separate business of Ambika Stores into the common stock, nor was it his intention to treat it as a joint family business. Company on behalf of the appellant referred to the recital in Ex. E describing the properties being those of the executants and that the borrowing was for trade and benefit of the family and it was argued that there was a clear intention on the part of Muniswami Raju to treat the business as joint family business. We have already referred to this document and indicated that the recitals were probably made for the purpose of securing a loan and cannot be construed as consent on the part of the members of the joint family to treat the business as the joint family business. Further, there is ample evidence to show that in all succeeding years before his death Muniswami Raju had always described himself and conducted himself as the sole proprietor of Ambika Stores. Further, there is ample evidence to show that in all succeeding years before his death Muniswami Raju had always described himself and conducted himself as the sole proprietor of Ambika Stores. Such an attitude on the part of Muniswami Raju was not consistent with any intention on his part either to abandon his exclusive right to the business or to allow the business to be treated as joint family business. Exhibits XXXV to SLVI are all documents executed by third parties in favour of muniswami Raju in which Muniswami Raju has been described as the proprietor of ambika Stores. Exhibits III, XXIII, XXIV, 51, 52, 56, 58, ZZ, AAA series and bbb are all communications addressed by institutions like Banks etc. , in which muniswami Raju has been described as the proprietor of Ambika Stores. It may be stated that the appellant himself has admitted in his evidence that he was not drawing any moneys from the business of ambika Stores and that whenever he wanted any money, he would ask Muniswami raju and obtain it from him. If really the appellant had considered himself to be a co-owner equally with Muniswami Raju, such conduct on his part is not explicable. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that there was no documentary evidence to show that the (@page-SC1281) appellant was being paid any salary by Muniswami raju and that prior to Muniswami Raju s death, it was the appellant who was in the entire management of Ambika Stores when Muniswami Raju was ill and after the death of Muniswami Raju also it was the appellant who had been in management. All the books of account and other documents pertaining to the business of ambika Stores had been admittedly entrusted to the appellant But it is not explained on behalf of the appellant as to why the documents were not produced on his behalf to disprove the case of the respondents that he was a salaried servant. It is therefore not unreasonable to draw an inference from the conduct of the appellant that the account books, if produced in Court, would not have supported his case. It is therefore not unreasonable to draw an inference from the conduct of the appellant that the account books, if produced in Court, would not have supported his case. We accordingly reject the argument of the appellant that the business of Ambika Stores became converted into joint family business at any subsequent stage by the conduct of Muniswami Raju in throwing the business into the common stock or in blending the earnings of the business with the joint family income. " ( 21 ) IN Jayaramachandra Iyer v. Thulasi Ammal, AIR 1978 Mad. 95 , wherein some joint family property sold for Rs. 3,000/- on 15-5-1963, on 20-6-1963 house was purchased in the name of only one of the two brothers for Rs. 1,600/-, both messing separately but living in the house, evidence about purchase money coming from purchaser s fund inadequate, held that the house was joint family property. ( 22 ) IN Sureshchandra Jamietram v. Bai Ishwari, AIR 1938 Bom. 206, it was held that where a father obtains title to a joint family property by excluding his coparceners, the property so acquired does not become his self acquisition but remains ancestral in character and his sons at birth obtain the right of coparceners in it with him. ( 23 ) IN Venkataramayya v. T. Krishna rao, AIR 1963 AP 305 , a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the aspect when the property acquired by alienation of ancestral property becomes joint family property observed as under:"in Sivaramakrishnan v. Kaveri Ammal, (S) air 1955 Mad 705 , it was held that when property was acquired by coparcener by detriment to the paternal estate, the acquired property would partake of the character of ancestral property, the detriment being that the original property, which would have come to the sons (subsequendy born or adopted) but for the alienation was not available at the subsequent date. We also agree with the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge that, as the property of A schedule was acquired to the detriment of the share of D-1 s branch at that time i. e. , D-l and his son (plaintiff) in the joint family property, A schedule properties constituted joint family properties of D-l and his sons, plaintiff and D-5 and that they are not self acquisition of D-l. " ( 24 ) THE same view was expressed by the Division Bench of Bombay High court in Ayyangouda v. Gadigeppagouda, air 1940 Bom. 200. ( 25 ) THE nexus in between the sale proceeds of the ancestral nucleus and the ,value of subsequent acquisitions must be no doubt a reasonable nexus. But, it is also pertinent to note that reasonable nexus cannot be decided always strictly as per mathematical calculations and accuracy, and many a time the same may have to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a particular given case. . It is also true that when the ancestral nucleus is very paltry and the subsequent acquisitions are too vast, it cannot be said that there is reasonable nexus. However, on facts, this court is of the considered opinion that this is not a case of such a nature. ( 26 ) IN the light of the evidence available on record i. e. , the evidence of P. W. 1 the evidence of D. W. 1 and also Exs. B-1 and b-2 and the receipt- Ex. B-3 coupled with the aspect of non-examination of any of the creditors who were specified while deposing, by D. W. 1 and also the admissions made by D. W. I and the important stand with regard to the short gap in between the sale of the ancestral nucleus and the purchase of the properties by the defendant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be found fault in any way and the trial Court taking into consideration the well settled principles of Hindu Law had applied the concept of right by birth to the coparceners and had awarded the decree for partition and accordingly the said findings are hereby confirmed. ( 27 ) ON the aspect of maintenance, no doubt no specific contention had been raised on the quantum of maintenance. ( 27 ) ON the aspect of maintenance, no doubt no specific contention had been raised on the quantum of maintenance. It is no doubt true that no specific issue had been settled by the trial Court in this regard. But, however both the parties were conscious of the fact that the claim of maintenance also had been claimed by the wife. Evidence had been adduced by the parties and merely because specific issue was not framed in this regard, this will not alter the situation in any way and hence, the trial Court rightly arrived at the conclusion and having observed so on appreciation of evidence granted appropriate relief to the wife only, negativing the relief to the married daughter. Hence, viewed from any angle this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings of the trial Court with regard to the maintenance need not be disturbed and the said findings be hereby confirmed. Point No. 3: ( 28 ) FOR the foregoing reasons specified supra the appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed. However, in view of the close relationship between the parties, this Court directs the parties to bear their own costs.