for the respondents, there is no reference to earlier decision Sankaranarayanan and Anr. v. The Official Receiver, Tirunelveli and Ors., , nor there is any reference to the decision of the Division Bench reported in summary form in Ramiah and Anr. v. Pechi Animal and Ors., 1977 TLNJ 7. Similarly, the decision of the Supreme Court in Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai and Anr. v. Desai Mallappa alias Mallesappa and Anr., , seems to have not been noticed. From the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai and Anr. v, Desai Mallappa alias Mallesappa and Anr., , Sankaranarayanan and Anr. v. The Official Receiver, Tirunelveli and Ors., , and also from the observations made by the Allahabad High Court in Bhagwant Kishore and Anr. v. Bishambhar Nath and Ors., and in Mayne's Treatise on "Hindu Law & Usage", and all other decisions noticed above, it is apparent that an exception is carved out in the matter relating to acquisition in the name of Karta, where it is proved that Karta had no independent income and he is in possession of some nucleus and not necessarily sufficient nucleus of the joint family property. In such a case, even where sufficient nucleus is not proved but existence of some nucleus is proved and it is further proved that Karta or Manager, in whose name property had been purchased, had no independent income, the burden is shifted to the Karta to prove that the property has been acquired without the aid of the joint family and with the own separate income of the Karta or the Manager. We hasten to add that such principle is inapplicable, where it is shown that Karta has some separate and independent income, in which event, the normal principle that it is for the person claiming a particular acquisition to the joint family property to prove that there was sufficient surplus from the joint family property from out of which the property in question could have been acquired.
