KARUPPA GOUNDER Vs. PALANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LATE Kalianna Gounder, who was murdered on 10-9-1956, was a member of a joint Hindu family, of which the other members were his father, Karuppanna gounder, the first defendant, and his brother, Chinnaswami, the second defendant. The plaintiffs are the widow and the daughter of the late Kalianna gounder and they sued for partition of the joint family properties specified in schedule A and for allotment of an one-third share therein. In respect of the B schedule properties, they claimed that this item belonged exclusively to late kalianna and his brother, the 2nd defendant, to that they were entitled to a half share therein. Recovery of certain moveables set out in Schedule C was also prayed for. Late Kalianna had insured his life for Rs. 3000 with the fourth defendant insurance Corporation. The first plaintiff claimed to be the nominee under the policy of insurance and sought to recover the entirety of this amount.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 contended that the first plaintiff was responsible for getting kalianna murdered so that she is disqualified from succeeding to Kalianna. In respect of the B Schedule properties, it was claimed that they also belonged to the joint family and were not the separate properties of Kalianna and the second defendant. It was denied by them that any of the properties mentioned in schedule C was with them. With regard to the insurance amount, the contention was that the premia for the insurance were paid from out of the joint family funds so that that item of property should also be regarded as joint family property. It was further alleged there were no outstandings due to the family as claimed by the plaintiff. On the other hand, there were debts binding upon the joint family to the extent of Rs. 10800.

(3.) ONE of the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in the suit was that a deed of gift executed by the first defendant in favour of His daughter, the third defendant, is a sham and nominal document and that it should be disregarded for the purpose of ascertaining the share due to the plaintiffs at the partition. In so far as this was concerned, it was contended by defendants 1 to 3 that the gift was a valid transaction, having been made in favour of the daughter in the exercise of the powers of the father and manager of a joint Hindu family and that it was not liable to be attacked in any manner whatsoever.