G RAMARAJ Vs. PONNUCHAMY REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 3 to 6 in O.S.363/81 are the appellants in A.S.1122/86, while the plaintiff in O.S.59/85 is the appellant in A.S.437/89.

(2.) Both the appeals have arisen from the common judgment and decree of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, granting a preliminary decree in O.S.363/81 and dismissing the suit in O.S.59/85.

(3.) The plaintiff in O.S.363/81 has averred in the plaint as follows: The plaintiff is the son of the defendants 1 and 2 and the brother of the defendants 3 and 7, while the defendants 4 to 6 are the children of the third defendant. Suit properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff, and some of them are purchased out of the income from the joint family properties and the defendants 1, 3 and 7. The properties described in 'A' Schedule are ancestral properties. 'B' Schedule properties were purchased in the name of the first defendant . Since the name of the second defendant is lucky, 'C' Schedule properties were purchased in her name. She is only a benami. 'D' Schedule properties were purchased in the name of the plaintiff. 'B' to 'D' Schedule properties were purchased from out of the income from the ancestral properties and from the joint efforts of the plaintiff and the defendants 1, 3 and 7. 'E' Schedule properties are in the house in Maiyittampatty Village, while 'F' Schedule properties are in the house in Madukathan Village. Though heavy amounts of the joint family in cash have been deposited in the names of the defendants 4, 5 and 6, they have no independent source of income. Hence, those deposits belonged to the joint family. The defendants 1 and 3 have also advanced loans to various parties to the tune of Rs.80,000/- from the joint family funds. The first defendant as kartha of the joint family is liable to render accounts for the same. The 8th defendant is the daughter and the 9th defendant is the son of the plaintiff, while the defendants 10 and 11 are the sons of the 7th defendant. The 9th defendant purchased 37 cents of punja lands from out of the funds provided by his mother by way of a registered sale deed dated 7.7.66. the said properties are not the joint family properties. The plaintiff and the defendants 1, 3 and 7 are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties. The 2nd defendant is entitled to only maintenance till her life from out of the share of the first defendant. Since quarrel arose in the family, the plaintiff tried his level best to have a partition of the joint family properties. On 5.6.81, the first defendant informed that there cannot be any partition, which constrained the plaintiff to file this suit for partition and allotment of 1/4th share of the suit properties to the plaintiff and for direction to the first defendant to render accounts.