P S SHADAGOPA NAIDU Vs. PSTHIRUMALASWAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit filed by the minor plaintiffs through their next friend for an account of the joint family properties belonging to themselves and their father, the defendant, for a partition of the properties and for delivery to them of their share of the properties.

(2.) The plaint sets out that the plaintiffs (who are the sons of the defendant) and the defendant are members of an undivided Hindu family possessed of the joint family properties mentioned in the plaint and that they are each entitled to 1/3rd share therein. The plaintiffs pray for a partition on the ground that the defendant is leading a reckless and immoral life, that he is living in the house of some prostitute or other after having driven his wife out of the house, that he is addicted to drink and that he has not been attending to his business. It is also alleged that he has been threatening to alienate the properties to prejudice the plaintiffs and is denying their rights to the properties, alleging that they are his own absolute properties--bequeathed under the Will of his father.

(3.) The defendant tiled a written statement denying the allegation in the plaint as to his conduct and character and pleading that of the properties mentioned in the plaint the business of Duff & Co. was bequeathed to him absolutely under the Will of his father, that house No. 1/17 and 2/17 mentioned in the plaint was bequeathed to his mother for life and to him absolutely after her death, that the village mentioned in the plaint was purchased by him after the death of his father for Rs. 8,000, that he paid Rs. 4,000 on account of principal and Rs. 1,000 on account of interest to the vendor, that he improved the property purchased by building a house in the village at a cost of Rs. 1,000. He denies that he has driven his wife out of the house and states that she was not behaving properly towards him and was leaving his house frequently without sufficient reason and that in January 1914, she left his house without his permission and has since then refused to come back to his house though asked to do so. As regards the allegation in the plaint as to his living in the house of some prostitute or other he states that owing to the conduct of his wife who was also a sickly woman, he has for sometime been keeping a woman who is living in No. 3/7, Venkatachela Achari Street, Komaleswaranpet, Madras, which is connected with house No. 17, Chandrabhan Street, referred to in the plaint as its third compartment. He states that the woman is occupying the house free of rent and that he is paying her only Rs. 15 a month,