MANICKAM CHETTY Vs. KAMALAM ALIAS KAMALATHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit has been brought on the allegation that the plaintiff's deceased husband and the first-defendant became divided and that the plaintiff is therefore entitled to her husband's share. It is also alleged that subsequent to the division the two brothers carried on business in partnership and the plaintiff on that footing claims an account of the partnership business. These mainly are the reliefs that the plaintiff has prayed for and the learned Subordinate Judge has found on these two points that the plaintiff's claim has been made out.

(2.) The facts may be briefly stated. There were three brothers: Annamalai, Arunachala, the plaintiff's husband and Manicka, the first defendant. They entered into a partition arrangement embodied in Ex. A, which covers 40 pages in print : That is a very elaborate document and the items allotted to each of the three individuals have been set out in great detail. Hence lands, outstandings, jewels, and all descriptions of property have been partitioned and adjustments have been made to equalise shares. The point, however, that has given rise to some controversy is that so far as certain outstandings amounting to Rs. 80,000 odd were concerned, they were jointly allotted to Arunachala and Manicka : as regards the other assets of the family, there has been in the main a separate allotment made to each of the three individual sharers. Subsequent to the partition, Arunachala and Manicka, carried on a joint trade (to use a neutral expression) treating the outstandings jointly allotted to them as pertaining to it. It may be mentioned that the partition to which we have adverted commenced on the 13 January, 1926, and was completed on the 25 February, 1928. Nevertheless the main items having been partitioned in the early part of 1926, the parties regarded themselves thenceforward as having become severed. The joint trade carried on by Arunachala and Manicka after the partition continued till the death of the former on the 16 February, 1929. The present action was commenced on the 5 April, 1929, i.e., within a few weeks after his death.

(3.) In the lower Court it was contended that the intention was merely to separate Annamalai from the family and that with a view to effect his separation, the shares of the three brothers were defined and elaborate calculations were made. This contention is opposed to the very clear and unambiguous recitals of Ex. A and does not require serious notice.