D NATESAN DIED Vs. THAYUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff D. Natesan who has lost his case in the trial has filed the appeal. Since he died during the pendency of the appeal his legal representatives have been impleaded as appellants 2 to 4.

(2.) THE plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers being sons of deceased Dharmalingam Poosari through his first wife Chellammal. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and defendants 5 to 7 are the daughters of dharmalingam Poosari through his second wife Kannammal. THE plaintiffs case is that Dharmalingam Poosari and his brothers out of their joint family income purchased properties as joint family properties. Under a partition entered into between them on 14. 8. 1944 Dharmalingam got the plaint schedule properties described in the partition deed as'a'schedule as his share. THEn Dharmalingam was the joint family Manager of the joint family consisting of himself and the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4.

(3.) NOW, it is common case that Dharmalingam Poosari, appavoo Poosari, Sankaran Poosari and Duraisamy Poosari had been living as one family in a common house having a common mense until they entered into a partition deed Ex. A-2 dated 17. 8. 1944. Ex. A-1 is a partiton deed dated 24. 1. 1915 which had been entered into between Dharmalingam Poosari and his paternal uncle Sevanthil-ingam Poosari. In that document it has been clearly mentioned that as regards lease lands obtained by Dharmalingam Poosari's father he (Dharmalingam Poosari) alone will be entitled to it. This would show that there was ancestral nucleus to Dharmalingam Poosari in the form of lease lands. It is not in dispute that subsequent to Ex. A-1 only the properties standing in the name of Dharmalingam had been acquired. The trial court on the reasoning that no lease deed has been produced by the plaintiff did not accept his plea that Dharmalingam had ancestrail nucleus from out of the income of the lease lands.