MANICKAM CHETTI Vs. KAMALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit has been brought on the allegation that the plaintiffs deceased husband and the 1 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 tee plaintiff's claim has been made out.

(2.) The facts may be briefly stated. There were three brothers: Annamalai, Arunachala, the plaintiffs husband and Manicka, the 1 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 controversey 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 January 13, 1926, and was completed on February 25, 1926 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, en February 16, 1929. The present action was commenced on April 5, 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.