SAMPATH ALIAS MUTHU NAIDU Vs. VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.Facts in brief The connected appeals arises out of the common Judgment rendered by the Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.101 of 1986 and 87 of 1986. The status of the parties in O.S.No.101 of 1986 has been taken by the trial Court as signifying reference in the suit in O.S.NO.87 of 1986 also adopt the same.

(2.) THE relationship between the parties is admitted. THE plaintiff Muthusamy Naidu @ Sampath and the first defendant Venkatesan are the sons of Kuppusamy and Renganayaki. THEir sisters are defendants 2 and 3. THE plaintiff has filed a suit for partition of the properties set out in 'B' schedule admitting them to be ancestral properties, in which the plaintiff is entitled to 5/12 share and for the relief of declaration of injunction in respect of 'C' schedule on the claim that they are the separate properties. THE first defendant has filed his own suit for partition for both 'B' and 'C' schedule properties in O.S.NO.87 of 1986 on the basis that all the properties are joint family properties. THE trial Court has upheld the contention of first defendant that all the properties are joint family properties, in which, the plaintiff and the first defendant are each entitled to 5/12 share and each one of the daughters entitled to 1/12 share. THE exclusive claim to title with reference to 'C' schedule has been disallowed. THE Court while granting the relief for partition has found that the debt covered under Ex.A7 and A8 alone are binding on the first defendant and in respect of other debts, the first defendant has not been saddled with any liability. II. Two principal points for consideration

(3.) THE binding nature of debts contracted by the first defendant is disputed by the first defendant on the ground that all the debts are false and they have been got up only for defeating the claim of the 1st defendant to a just partition. THE trial Court has dealt with each one of the debts and has come to the conclusion that only the debt in favour of the Cooperative Society viz. Ex.A8 and the Court decree in O.S.701 of 1981 in Ex.A7 are binding. Mr.Raghavachari, argued that admittedly after the death of the father, more than 30 years back, the plaintiff who was in management of the properties had married of both his sisters, the sisters side with the plaintiff and it is seen from the wedding invitations marked as Ex.A1 and A2 that the marriage of defendants 2 and 3 were celebrated on 8.7.1970 and 19.6.1976 respectively. It is also in evidence that the construction of the residential house was completed and the Grahapravesam was made on 2.3.1976. It is the contention of the plaintiff that debts had been contracted for celebration marriage of sisters as well as for construction of house and for other family necessities. THE 1st defendant would refute this argument by pointing out that the house itself was dilapidated and no new construction had been made. He has relied on photograph of the house showing the dilapidated nature of the building. THE 1st defendant admitted that the plaintiff had celebrated the wedding of their sisters, but all the debts contracted by the plaintiff were far too removed from the occasions of the marriages and they could not have been contracted for such purposes. THE trial Court has referred to each one of the debts and has found that they were not true except in EX.A7 and A8 as referred to above. Counsel for the appellants made reference to each one of the documents to bring home the point that when the plaintiff was admittedly the Kartha of the family and he had power to contract debts without joining the other members of the family in the debt instruments. This proposition cannot be in doubt, unless the debt is for purposes not binding on the family or when they were not for any necessities.