BALASUBRAMANIA REDDI Vs. NARAYAN REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiff, whose suit for partition of the properties described in schedules A, B and C and allotment of one such share to him was substantially dismissed by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Vellore.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the son of the second defendant and the grandson of the first defendant Narayan Reddiar had four sons. Venkatarama Reddi. Govinda Reddi (plaintiff's father), Venkatakrishna Reddi, 3rd defendant, and Gopalakrishna Reddi, 4th defendant, and one daughter Rajambal Ammal, 5th defendant. Venkatarama reddi is not a party to the suit. The case as set up by the next friend of the minor plaintiff Balasubramania Reddi is that the first defendant and his fur sons constituted members of a Hind joint family. In the year 1929 when Venkatarama reddi, the eldest son of the first defendant, expressed a desire to desperate himself form the joint family, the first defendant effected a partition on 22-101929 in and by which he divided the joint family properties among his sons and allotted one share to his eldest son Venkatarama Reddi and put him in possession of his share of the properties. As defendants 2 to 4 were minors at the time of the partition, the first defendant was in possession and management of the properties allotted to them. It is the case of the plaintiff that even after the partition the other members of the family constituted to live together as members of a reunited family under the management of the first defendant. It is alleged in the plaint that three sums of Rs. 1000 each were set apart at the time of the partition for the marriage expenses of defendants 2 to 4, and the plaintiff now calls upon the first defendant to account for these sums. It is further alleged in the plaint that during the management of the first defendant, several properties were purchased in the name of himself and his sons and daughter from and out of the income of the joint family. The plaintiff claims a share in all these properties stating that they are joint family properties in which he has got 1/8th share and prays for partition and allotment of his share. The plaintiff also alleges that the first defendant lent moneys to various persons amounting to Rs. 15000 form and out of the joint family income. Further the first defendant in order to benefit his daughter 5th defendant is alleged to have executed a settlement deed in respect of the property described in schedule B (1 ). Alleging that his interests would be considerably jeopardised if he continues to live jointly with defendants 1 to 4, the plaintiff filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for partition of the properties described in schedules A, B, and C to the plain.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by all the defendants. They filed written statements to the effect that there was a partition in the year 1929, whereby specific shares were allotted to each of the sons of the first defendant, and that the properties allotted to the sons were handed over to them as and when they become major and subsequently they were in possession and management of their respective properties and were purchasing form and out of the income thereof several items of properties in their names. The plaintiff's father second defendant received his share of the properties in 1932, when he became major and was managing the same through his brother-in-law. The first defendant also pleaded in his written statement that whatever properties he settled on his daughter, fifth defendant, belong to him being his self acquisitions and the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest in respect o those properties. The second defendant, i. e. , plaintiff's father, pleaded in his written statement that he has no interest in the properties purchased in the names of the first defendant or the other defendants. The 4th defendant alleged in his written statement that the properties standing in his name were acquired form his own funds, but pleaded that he has no objection to a partition being made of all the items of properties excepting the items purchased in his name. In her written statement, the fifth defendant stated that the properties settled on her by her father originally belonged to her maternal grandfather, who settled the same on her mother, and that the plaintiff cannot question the settlement effected by her father or claim any share in these properties. On these pleadings the parties went to trial.