The Karta of a joint family is not liable to account for past transactions in the absence of fraud or misappropriation.

Judgment

DAS GUPTA J. :- Three brothers, Ramakrishna, Narayanaswamy and Mahadeva, who are eighty-three, seventy-nine and sixty-nine years of age respectively, are the main figures in this litigation. After their father s death in 1908 the three brothers continued as members of a joint family. The eldest brother, Ramakrishna became under the law the Karta of the family. When the father died the family was possessed of about 10 acres of land. But he had also left some debts and one of the first acts which Ramakrishna had to do as the Manager was the repayment of those debts. Ramakrishna had become the Karnam in Narasingampettai in 1902 and even during his father s life-time started acquiring property. Property to the extent of about 25 acres was acquired for the joint family between the years 1911 to 1931. In 1927 Ramakrishna had been transferred to the bigger village of Vepatthur and continued to be there till 1930. On his retirement in that year his son Venkatarama succeeded him as the Karnam of Vepatthur. Between 1931 to 1946 properties in Vepatthur and other villages, were acquired in the name of Ramakrishna s son Venkatarama, his wife Mangalathammal, his grandson (Venkatarama s son) Malalingam. Some property was acquired also in the name of Mangalathammal s brother Raja Ayyar. Monies were also invested in loans in the names of Ramakrishnan s wife, Mangalathammal, his son Venkatarama and his grandson, Mahalingam.

2. The second brother Narayanaswami became a Vakil s clerk in Kumbakonam in 1910. The third brother Mahadeva who was a boy of thirteen at the time of his father s death was put into the medical school and qualified as a doctor. He was in service as a Sub Assistant Surgeon at the time when the present suit was instituted by Narayanaswamy. Both of them earned well and have admittedly acquired properties for themselves out of their own earnings.

3. As early as the thirties feelings became strained between Ramakrishna, the eldest brother and Narayanaswami the second brother. Mahadeva who had to remain away at different places in connection with his service demanded partition of the joint family properties and in this Narayanaswami also seems to have joined him. The extreme action of going to Courts was however not taken so long as mother was alive. She died early in 1945 at the age of 90 years. In December (12th December) 1946 Narayanaswami sent a lawyer s notice to Ramakrishna in which he claimed that not only the 25 acres acquired between 1911 and 1931 but also the properties, acquired in the name of Ramakrishna s wife, his son and brother-in-law, had been acquired with the income of the family and formed part of the joint family properties. He claimed also in this notice that family funds of about Rs. 25,000/- was in the hands of Ramakrishna in the shape of cash and Benami investments. He demanded a partition of all these properties and of the cattle and other movable properties owned by the family. He also called upon Ramakrishna to account for the income derived from the family properties "for the last three years at least". In all these he claimed a one-third share.

4. To this Ramakrishna replied on December 31, 1946. He stated that the joint family properties consisted only of 10 acres left by their father and about 25 acres acquired later on and denied that the other properties belonged to the family. Soon after this, on the 1st February 1947, Narayanaswami brought this suit for partition and accounts in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. The eldest brother Ramakrishna was impleaded as the first defendant; Mahadeva the third brother, was the second defendant. Ramakrishna s son Venkatarama, his wife Mangalathammal and his brother-in-law Raja Iyer were impleaded as the third, fourth and the fifth defendants respectively. Mahalingam was impleaded as the sixth defendant. Two other minor sons of Venkatarama were also impleaded. They are the seventh and the eighth defendants in the case.

5. The plaintiffs case