RAMASWAMI IYER Vs. SUBRAMONIA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree which has given rise to this appeal was one allowing a suit by two plaintiffs for the cancellation of an order dismissing claims to property attached before judgment in O.S.No.98 of 1956 of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Parur.The second plaintiff is the first plaintiff's daughter's son in whose favour the former had gifted a portion of the attached property.O.S.No.98 of 1956 was a suit instituted by the first defendant against the third defendant,one of the sons of the plaintiff.The first defendant attached the interest of the third defendant in the two items of immovable property,alleging that the same belonged to the joint family of the first plaintiff and his sons,including the third defendant.The two plaintiffs filed separate claims which were dismissed by the order,Ext.P.5.This suit relates to one of the items attached.According to the plaintiffs,this property did not belong to the joint family but was the separate property of the first plaintiff.The first defendant's contention was that the property was acquired the name of the first plaintiff with joint family funds and that in any event the first plaintiff had allowed the same to mingle with joint family property so that it became impressed with the character of joint family property.Overruling these contentions the suit was decreed;hence this appeal by the first defendant.

(2.) The points raised in appeal are(1)that the plaint property belongs to the joint family and(2)that even if it was originally the separate property of the first plaintiff,it had become joint family property before the date of attachment.

(3.) Before considering these points,a few facts may be stated.The property in dispute was acquired by the first plaintiff under Ext.P.1 dated 14-6-1014.The admitted items of joint family property were those obtained under Ext.P.2,a deed of settlement dated 12-2-1081 executed by the first plaintiff's father.Ext.P.2 provided that the first plaintiff's father was to be in possession of the properties till his death.he died only in the year 1087 .,The question whether the property was acquired with the aid of funds belonging to the family has to be considered in the light of these facts.