T SUBBARAYULU CHETTY Vs. TKAMALAVALLI THAYARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair awarding the plaintiff Rs. 25 a month by way of maintenance and giving a decree in her favour for a sum of Rs. 700 which represents the value or certain jewels which she claimed as her property. Three points were raised on behalf of the appellant. The first was that the decree was wrong in as much as it was given against all the members of the family of the plaintiff s deceased husband. The second point was that Rs. 25 a month was too much for her maintenance. The third point was that the learned judge was wrong in giving plaintiff a decree for Rs. 700 - for the jewels which she claimed.

(2.) I can deal with the 2nd and 3rd points quite shortly and I will take them first. In arriving at Rs. 25 a month as the proper sum to be awarded to the plaintiff for maintenance the learned Judge refers to a discussion that took place after the plaintiff s husband s death and to a decision by certain arbitrators, who were of opinion that the plaintiff should be paid Rs. 10 a month for maintenance; that she should be given jewels worth Rs. 1,500 as her absolute property and a life interest in jewels worth Rs. 500. The learned Judge points out that this really amounts to a payment of almost a sum of Rs. 1,500 as representing the value of jewels to which she is absolutely entitled and a monthly payment of Rs. 10 and a life interest in jewels worth Rs. 500 and taking them into consideration he thinks that Rs. 25 a month in lieu of a monthly payment of Rs. 10, Rs. 1,500 worth of jewels and a life interest in Rs. 500 worth of jewels would be a fair equivalent. He accordingly assesses her maintenance at that rate. I am not prepared to hold that the learned Judge was wrong in assessing the maintenance at that amount. The third point was not seriously pressed by Mr. Ananthakrishna Iyer. The learned Judge says that he is inclined to accept the evidence of the plaintiff that the jewels claimed belonged to her and accordingly found in her favor. I am not prepared to say he was wrong.

(3.) We come now to what is really the important point in this case. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the judge was wrong in giving a decree against all the members of the undivided family of the plaintiff s husband, The actual form of the decree is that the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants do pay to the plaintiff her arrears of maintenance and a further sum of Rs. 25 a month and that the arrears and the monthly maintenance be a. charge on a certain house. No. 334, Mint Street, which forms part of the family property. Now it appears from the genealogical tree which has been furnished to us that the 5th defendant is the brother of the deceased husband of the plaintiff and represents the plaintiff s husband s branch of the family. The plaintiff s husband was the grandson of the common ancestor Rangiah Chetti, he and the 5th defendant representing one branch of the family. The 4th defendant is the grandson of the common ancestor through another son, and the 1st defendant is a son of the common ancestor. The 3rd defendant is the grandson of the common ancestor through another son. There are thus 4 branches of the family of which Rungiah Chetti was the common ancestor.