father, the 1st defendant from and out of the ancestral nucleus and hence, she is entitled to half share in the suit property ... property was purchased by the first defendant out of the joint family nucleus. It is also contended that the suit itself has been brought
earnings contributed by the plaintiff's savings and labour. The
nucleus and capital was also contributed by Akkal Raju and his
elder brother Subbaraju ... contracting business
undertaken by the said joint family constituted the major nucleus
in the form of hard labour of the plaintiff, as defendant
ionising radiation" means emission due to self-disruptive fission of atomic nucleus of any radioactive substance which is hazardous to health; (zx) "kelly cock" means
have produced
sufficient evidence to establish that the joint
family had sufficient nucleus at its disposal, when
the lands and houses were purchased by defendant ... said lands and houses were purchased by
defendant no.2 from that nucleus. He submits that
the learned trial Judge wrongly placed the burden
name of defendant No.1 not out of the
joint family nucleus. The defendants have failed to
prove that their father Yallappa had sufficient nucleus ... purchased is a joint family
property, it is necessary to show sufficient nucleus and
surplus income after meeting daily necessities of the
joint family
than a decade. The learned Civil Judge held
that there was no nucleus for the joint family property to be acquired
and for the properties ... Defendants to acquire the
properties. Finding that there was no nucleus was not correct and
the Appellant being minor would not know whether there
purchased in the name of the defendants, out of the joint family nucleus.
12. When the matter stood thus, the 1st defendant, acting against ... well as in the name of 1st defendant from the joint family nucleus. From the nature of the aforesaid written statement, it could be easily
purchased in the name of the defendants, out of the joint family nucleus.
12. When the matter stood thus, the 1st defendant, acting against ... well as in the name of 1st defendant from the joint family nucleus. From the nature of the aforesaid written statement, it could be easily
proved, whether the property in
dispute was purchased by the joint nucleus of the
joint Hindu Family of the parties, if so to what
effect ... held that since the property had been purchased with the joint
nucleus of the parties therefore the appellants were entitled to a share
than a decade. The learned Civil Judge held
that there was no nucleus for the joint family property to be acquired
and for the properties ... Defendants to acquire the
properties. Finding that there was no nucleus was not correct and
the Appellant being minor would not know whether there
