VISWANATHAN Vs. RAMANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question in this appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for partition is whether item 1 in A schedule to the plaint belongs to the joint family of the parties who are governed by Hindu Law. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Arumughan deceased and the plaintiff and defendant 3 are the sons of defendant 1 by his first wife. A schedule item 1 is a leasehold acquired by Arumughan and the first defendant under the original of Ext. Al dated May 23, 1946. The plaintiff claimed that it is a piece of joint family property and on that footing sought partition and separate possession of 1/6th share. The first defendant resisted this claim, contending that item 1 is his self acquisition and not joint family property and that his father Arumughan joined in Ext. A1 only at the instance of the landlords and took no beneficial interest.

(2.) The Trial Court accepted the plaintiff's case holding that A schedule item 1 is an acquisition of the joint family and that it is therefore available for partition. On appeal by the first defendant, the appellate court reversed this finding in the view that there was no proof of adequate joint family nucleus from which item 1 could have been acquired, that the junction of Arumughan in Ext. Al raised no presumption that it was an acquisition for the joint family and that the only possible conclusion was that Arumughan and the first defendant took the property as tenants in common. On this basis the appellate court held that one half of item 1 belonged to the first defendant exclusively and that as a result of Arumughan's death, the other half was available for partition.

(3.) The plaintiff has appealed seeking restoration of the decree of the Munsiff's Court on A schedule item 1, but the first defendant has submitted to the decision of the appellate court.