Judgement

Consolidated Appeals (Nos. 150 and 151 of 1919) from a judgment and decree (April 19, 1915) of the High Court, varying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly.

The consolidated appeals arose out of a suit brought by Narayana Annavi, and his two minor sons, for partition of the property of a joint Hindu (Mitakshara) family consisting of themselves and of Ramalinga, Ramakrishna, and Krishna Annavi, the last three named with others being defendants. Narayana was the son of Lakshmivaraha (deceased); Ramalinga was the son, and the other two named defendants were grandsons of Ramalinga (deceased) the brother of Lakshmivaraha.

Both Courts in India had rejected the defendants con tention that in 1895 there had been a division of the joint status of the family. At that date certain sums due to a money-lending business carried on by the joint family had been divided. The Subordinate Judge found that there had then been a complete winding up of the family money-lending business. The High Court found that the division of property which then took place comprised only three particular items, and that the residue of the family property remained to be partitioned in the suit. The question as to the true effect of the transaction of 1895 depended upon the evidence and a report of that part of the case is not called for.

Two subsidiary questions arose. The first was as to the validity of gifts made by Lakshmivaraha (deceased) to his daughter Ponnu Ammal. On the division in 1895 Lakshmivaraha was allotted a sum of Rs. 8300 due to the family business from a debtor, who gave him a promissory note for Rs.3300 and, by his directions, gave a note for Rs.5000 to Ponnu Ammal. In 1898 these notes were secured by usufructuary mortgages. In 1908 Lakshmivaraha assigned to Ponnu by deed the mortgage for Rs.3300 in his favour, together with a small house. The deed gave the reasons for the transaction as follows "As you are my only daughter, as from the time of your mothers death up to this date, you alone have been protecting me properly, as I did not give you jewels and ornaments such as would be in keeping with my rank, as I did not at all give you the funds of your mother which were with me, I have, with sound understanding and full consent, conveyed to you by means of this deed of settlement the properties specified in the schedules." The value of the plaintiffs claim in the suit was put at over a lakh of rupees.

The second question arose upon a claim of the plaintiffs that the marriage expenses of plaintiffs 2 and 3, the sons of Narayana (plaintiff 1) should be provided for. At the date when the suit was brought neither of the sons was married, but the elder married before the decree was made. The expenses of the marriage of defendant 1, who was in the same degree as plaintiffs 2 and 3, had been met out of the joint family property.

The Subordinate Judge held that any claim to the Rs.5000 given to Ponnu was barred by limitation and that the gift to her in 1908 was valid as stridhan. He referred to Sundararamayya v. Sitamma (( 1911) I. L. R. 35 M. 628.) in support of his view on that point, and said that the gift could not be considered unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. He rejected the claim to marriage expenses, saying " I can find no authority in support of the plaintiffs contention on this point; it is true that in the case of brothers, the eldest brother is bound to perform the necessary samskaras from the common funds for his younger brothers, but that is not the case here."

On appeal to the High Court the learned judges (Sankaran Nair and Oldfield JJ.) affirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge as to the properties transferred to Ponnu Ammal. They further considered that the transaction could not be treated as a mere gift, as Ponnu was living with and looking after, her father. They held that the marriage expenses of plaintiff 2 should be provided for, as in their view the severance of the joint status took place