R VAIDYANATH AIYAR Vs. GAIYASAMY AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is one for partition. There were five brothers who were members of an undivided family. Defendants Nos. 3 to 14 are the descendants of the eldest brother, Sitarama Aiyar. Defendants Nos. 15 to 21 are the descendants of another brother, Srinivasa Aiyar. The third brother's name is Ramasami Aiyar. The plaintiff is the adopted son of the fourth brother, Gopala Aiyar. The 1 defendant was the youngest of the brothers. In the year 1874 Ramasami Aiyar obtained his share and divided from the rest of the family (Exhibit VI). In 1892 there was a partition amongst the other brothers of properties yielding between Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 40,000 a year. Gopala Iyer, the adoptive father of the plaintiff, continued to be the managing member on behalf of the family of the properties left undivided till his death in April 1893. Then the 1 defendant became the manager. Disputes arose in the course of his management and there was a reference to arbitration (See Exhibit C) in October 1893 of all claims in dispute. The family jewel-box and the box containing the documents relating to the debts due to the family were delivered to the arbitrators by the 1 defendant: but no final award was ever made or any partition effected by them.

(2.) The plaintiff now sues for his share of the properties which remained undivided. The Sub- Judge has passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for his share of the immoveable properties and the jewels and also for his share of the debts that have been recovered by the various members of the family. From this decree the first defendant appeals. The appellant takes objection to the amount that has been awarded to the plaintiff for his share of the debts realized by the others. The Subordinate Judge finds that the following sums have been recovered by the various parties to this appeal from the debtors:

(3.) As each branch is entitled to a fourth share, the Subordinate Judge has decreed that those who have received anything in excess of their share should pay it to the others, that the latter might get their fourth. The 1 defendant has accordingly been ordered to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 13,984-15-8 1/2 which would represent the plaintiff's one-fourth share of Rs. 19,827-14-61/2 less the sum which he has realized: to pay for the same reason to the 15th defendant Rs. 3,993-10-3; and has ordered the 3 defendant to pay to the 15 defendant Rs. 520-0-0 1/2