K S RAMANATHAN Vs. R JAYARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in the suit is the appellant in a. S. No. 768 of 1985 and the defendants 2 and 6 in the suit are the appellants in A. S. No. 974 of 1986. The first respondent has filed the suit in O. S. No. 20 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai praying for a preliminary decree for partition of 1/4th share in the properties mentioned in Schedules 1 to 9, or alternatively prayed for a decree for partition of 1/2th share in Schedule 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9, with reference to good and bad soil, by metes and bounds. That apart, he has also claimed partition of 1/5th share in the jewels or their value in 10th schedule.

(2.) THE plaintiff's case was that the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 are the undivided sons of the first defendant and they constituted a Hindu Joint Family owning joint family properties described in Schedules 1 to 9, besides other properties which were already sold. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant's father, viz. , Chinnaiah Thever and his brother Kutty Thever were living at Ceylon doing money-lending, pawn broker and general Merchant business. The said Kutty Thevar has settled his claim with his brother, Chinnaiah Thever and returned to India and thereafter, Chinnaiah Thever was solely entitled to the business. After the said Chinnaiah thever returned to India, the first defendant, being his son was managing the business and ultimately, the business came to be wound up.

(3.) THE first defendant has filed a written statement. While denying various allegations raised by the plaintiff, the first defendant who is the father of the plaintiff, would state that the claim of the plaintiff is contradictory. While the plaintiff admits in one place that kutty Thevar has settled all his claims with Chinnaiah thevar at Ceylon and came to India, he has chosen to give a contradictory version that Chinnaiah Thevar and his sons were living as members of joint family along with his brother Kutty Thevar. While it is true that there was a family arrangement in the year 1955 and properties were divided between the branches of Chinnaiah Thevar and Kutty thevar, it is denied that the land reforms registration is the basis for such family arrangement. It is also denied that there was no division as per family arrangement. The first defendant also denies the allegation that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 constituted a coparcenary. It is the case of the first defendant that the very fact that later there was a division between the first defendant and his brother shows that there was a clear division of properties. The allegation that the income from properties was used for the rice mill and paddy business is also denied. It is also denied that the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant have sent moneys and the properties were purchased in the name of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 with the joint family income.