1. The fact that the defendant and his brother were joint does not conclude the question whether the amount in deposit was the separate property of the brother or not. A member of a joint family can acquire separate property.
2. It appears to me that the defendant is estopped from contending that the suit debt was joint family property by his application for an heirship certificate.
3. Such a certificate might have been required to enable him to recover the insurance money; but there was no need to include the suit debt if he got it by survivorship.
4. The Subordinate Judge's view regarding the earnings of a Vakil who has received only a general education at the expense of family funds is opposed to the view of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Pauliam Valoo Chetty v. Pauliam Sooraya Chetty 4 I.A. 109; 1 M. 252.
5. The Subordinate Judge's decision is not according to law and has caused a failure of justice and must, therefore, be reversed.