R V MANICKA MUDALIAR Vs. V M THANGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is from the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 35 of 1958, on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, granting a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of a quarter share in favour of the plaintiff regarding plaint A and B schedule properties. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant. It will be convenient to refer to the appellant as the first defendant and to the first respondent as the plaintiff in this judgment. Respondents 2 and 3 to this appeal were defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the son of the first defendant, by his first wife. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant by his second wife, Samppoornam, who is not a party to the suit. The parties are hereditarily rich and have been trading in yarn. They are Sengunthar-Mudaliars by caste governed by the Hindu Mitakshara law. The suit was one for partition in which the plaintiff claimed one-fourth share in the plaint A and B and C schedule properties A schedule consists of bank deposits, shares in limited companies, Government promissory notes, cash and sundry outstandings; B schedule comprises improvable properties; C schedule consists of moveables like silver wares, gold jewels and diamond jewels. A Commissioner appointed by the Court below took an inventory of the household and submitted a report on 18th April 1958. The Court below has granted a decree for division of plaint A and B schedule properties and of items 1 to 33 in the Commissioner's inventory. There is no decree in respect of plaint C schedule and the necessary implication is that the suit ,is dismissed so far as C schedule is concerned. The first defendant has two unmarried daughters, of kinder years staled to_ be now 9 years and 6 years of age and a provision has been directed to be made in the final decree for their marriage expenses in the sum of Rs. 2000 each. This is the decree which is now the subject-matter of the appeal.

(3.) IN this appeal the first defendant raises the following contentions : (1 ). The sum of Rs. 2,63, 300-62 np. received by the first defendant as solatium for the resignation of the office of managing agency in the Pullicar Mills Ltd. , Trichengode is not a divisible joint family asset; (2) the amount of Rs. 4800 standing to the credit of Sampoornam (first defendant's second wife) in Jawahar Mills Ltd. Salem noted as item 40 in the plaint A Schedule does not belong to the family and should therefore be excluded from division; (3), Items 11, 12, 24, 25, 27, 28 and 29 in the inventory dated 18th April 1958 are jewels belonging to Sampoornam and hence not divisible; (4) the marriage provision for the two daughters of the family at the rate of Rs. 2000 for each is parsimonious and inadequate having regard to the wealth and status of the family and that it should be increased substantially befitting the social position of the family. We may at once mention that the point which is much debated before us is that relating to the sum of Rs. 2,63,200 and odd; the other points were not keenly contested as Mr. V. Thyagaraja Iyer, learned counsel for the plaintiff adopted a fair and reasonable attitude in the matter.