(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.13 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
(2.) The plaintiff, who lost the case before the trial Court, is the appellant herein. Respondents 1 to 6 in the appeal were the defendants 1 to 6 in the suit. Plaintiff's father is the first respondent in the appeal and respondents 2 to 4 are the plaintiff's brothers and respondents 5 and 6 are the sons of the second respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as shown in the suit.
(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that A and B schedule properties mentioned in the schedule of property are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants 1, 3 and 4 and himself are not worldly wise people and they are always fastened to the agriculture avocation. It is his case that the second defendant is maintaining the entire joint family and on the basis of the directions of the second defendant, the plaintiff, father of the plaintiff and his brothers were acting. In other words, according to him, the second defendant was the manager of the joint family and he was maintaining the income and expenditure of the joint family properties. His case is that the entire joint family properties are enjoyed by the joint family without any partition. The plaintiff has stated that he was requested by the Village Official to pay kist in respect of his share of the joint family property on the score that there was a partition in his family. It is stated that the plaintiff thereafter obtained particulars and applied for copy of the document and found out that the second defendant has played a fraud on the plaintiff, his father and his brothers and created a partition deed as if there had been a partition by consent of the parties. His case is that there was not even a talk of partition in the family at any point of time and there was no occasion to effect the partition.