MEENAMBAL Vs. CHOCKALINGA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of the decision in O. S. No. 45 of 1964 on the file of the Sub-Court, Vellore, A. S. No. 389 of 1969 has been filed by defendants 18 to 22 and A. S. No. 103 of 1970 has been filed by the plaintiff in the said suit.

(2.) THE said suit was one for partition of the lands described in Schedule C to the plaint into four shares and of the house described in Schedule B and the properties described in Schedule D into five shares and for allotting the plaintiff one such share after setting aside the partition deed dated 20-4-1951 and the alienations of some of the suit properties by defendans 1 to 3, if need be and for directing the first defendant to render accounts in respect of the joint family properties which were in her management from 1-10-1951 till the date of the filing of the suit. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are brothers, being the sons of one Vengan Chetti, who died on 19-11-1944, by his third wife, the fourth defendant. Vengan Chetti had another son, Perumal Chetti by his second wife and the said Perumal Chetti died on 1-4-1951 and the first defendant is his widow.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff the properties described in Schedules B, C and D to the plaint are properties left by Vengan Chetti and that on his death the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 and the deceased husband of the first defendant each became entitled to a one-fourth. share in the agricultural properties and a one-fifth share in the non-agricultural properties, the fourth defendant being entitled to the balance one-fifth share in the non-agricultural properties. After Vengan's death, the deceased husband of the first defendant being his eldest son was the manager of the joint family. On his death the first defendant, his wife, continued to manage the properties belonging to the joint family. On or about 20-4-1951, a registered partition came to be entered into between the first defendant, second defendant and the fourth defendant acting as guardian of the plain-tiff and the third defendant who were the minors. Jt is the case of the plaintiff that the said partition brought about by the partition deed dated 20-41951, was unequal, unfair and unjust, that though the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 were together entitled to a 4/5th share in the non-agricultural properties and a 3/4th share in the agricultural properties, the first defendant had been allotted half share in the joint family properties absolutely for herself, that the first defendant has played a fraud on the plaintiff's mother and took a much larger share than to what she was legally entitled to, that the plaintiff's mother was not competent to act as his guardian and she did not properly safeguard the minor's interest that though the plaintiff's mother was entitled to a share in the properties she was not given any share in the partition, that valuable properties had been allotted to the first defendant while useless properties have been allotted to the share of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3, that most of the moveables belonging to the joint family were not divided but were allowed to be in the possession of the first defendant, that fictitious debts were allotted to the share of the first defendant while real debts were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 and that, therefore, the partition deed cannot be taken to be valid and binding on the plaintiff.