ancestral properties had been the source for the acquisition of the items 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties, Ex.A5 sale deed like the other sale deeds would have been acquired in the name of the father. In such view of the matter, merely from the recital in Ex.A5 that the first defendant acquired the said properties as the family head cannot be construed that as the family manager of his brothers and sister, he had acquired the said properties under Ex.A5. There is no material placed on record to show that at the point of time of Ex.A5 sale deed, the first defendant was acting as the manager of the family consisting of his brothers and sisters, particularly, at the relevant point of time when the father was alive. Furthermore, when according to the first defendant, the parties namely the plaintiff, first defendant as well as the second defendant are found to have acquired the properties in their individual names as well as in the names of their wives, as could be seen from the materials placed on record, when according to the plaintiff, the properties acquired in his name and in the name of his wife and in the name of the wife of the second defendant are the separate properties, his case that the properties acquired in the name of the first defendant should only be treated as the joint family properties as such cannot be readily countenanced. Particularly, when there is no material to show that only with the aid of ancestral nucleus, the first defendant had acquired the said properties under Ex.A5 sale deed. Furthermore, there is no material to show that, following Ex.A5 sale deed, the items 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties had been blended with the other joint family properties and enjoyed by the members of the joint family in common as such. In particular, when at the time of Ex.A5, there is no material to hold that the first defendant was acting as the family manager consisting of the father, his brothers and sisters, merely because, the father was ill at the relevant point of time, it cannot be held that the first defendant was the family manager, even at the point of time of acquisition of the items 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties under Ex.A5. On the other hand, when the materials placed on record go to show that at the relevant point of time i.e., 1980 onwards the first defendant had been living separately with his own family and when the parties had been acquiring the properties in their individual names as abovenoted and when according to the plaintiff, the properties acquired in the individual names of the other members and their wives respectively are their self acquired properties and only the properties acquired in the name of the first defendant are the joint family properties derived from the income of the joint family sans any material pointing to the same as above discussed, it is seen that the first appellate court is not justified in holding that the items 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties are also the joint family properties of the parties and that the plaintiff is entitled to claim partition in respect of the said properties also. If the logic applied by
