property has been treated and enjoyed as the Joint family property of Thiruvengada Naicker and his four sons. A perusal of Ex.B1 would go to show that the prior to Ex.B1, the suit property had been earlier mortgaged on 12.06.1965. Therefore, it could be seen that at the time of the first mortgage, the sons of Thiruvengada Naicker were only minors. No material to hold otherwise has been placed by the defendants. The second mortgage under Ex.B1 has been executed to discharge the earlier mortgage debt and also, for meeting the family expenses. Therefore it could be seen that as rightly argued by the plaintiffs counsel, inasmuch as the earlier mortgage deed was executed by Thiruvengada Naicker along with minor sons, the second mortgage had also been executed on the same lines perhaps at the instance of the mortgagee. However, with reference to same, there is no proof on the side of the plaintiffs. Be that as it may, as rightly put forth by the plaintiffs' counsel, on the sole ground that Thiruvengada Naicker had jointly executed the mortgage deed along with four sons, that by itself, would not lead to the conclusion that the suit property had been treated as the joint family property of Thivengada Naicker and his four sons. Barring the said isolated incident, as seen from the evidence of DW1, there is no material whatsoever to show or evidence that the suit property had been ever treated as the Joint family
