This contention cannot be accepted. Merely because there exists a joint family, the presumption does not arise that the properties are joint family properties. For such a presumption to arise a nucleus for purchase of the properties needs to be established. Once there is a sufficient nucleus from which the properties could be acquired, the burden could shift on those who assert that the properties is a selfacquired property. Both the Courts have rendered a categorical factual finding that there existed no such nucleus from which the properties could be purchased. The property admittedly is in the name of father of the Defendant-Sonu, as a tenant. The deed of 7 April 1964 is also in the name of Sonu. Merely because the Appellant was a minor, the burden of proof exists of nucleus cannot be dispensed with in the present case as nothing is shown that, there were any efforts made to find out the existence of nucleus and inspite of best efforts that Appellant failed in obtaining such evidence or could not examine any elder person. The learned Civil Judge took note of the properties that existed to come to the conclusion that they did not give rise to any sufficient nucleus for the purchase. That being the position, property A which stood in the name of Sonu and property B which stood in the name of Dhananjay, without any evidence of these properties being thrown in common hotch potch, partition could not have been sought. Nothing has been shown to discredit the finding of fact rendered by both the Courts that these two properties, which stood in the name of Sonu and Dhananjay, were not joint family properties. That being the position the
