The main legal principle established in the judgment is the interpretation of the 1914 settlement deed as a maintenance grant and its impact on the validity of alienations in a Hindu joint family.

Mr. M.R. Jayakar.-

This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated 24 - 1 - 1944, of the High Court of Madras, which reversed the judgment and decree dated 17 - 12 - 1941, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Rajahmundry.

2. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by respondent 1 for partition of the plaint properties and for the recovery of a share therein, after setting aside certain alienations made in respect of them by his father, respondent 2. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, holding the alienations to be binding on respondent 1. The High Court reversed his decision. The main question in this appeal is therefore whether or not the alienations in question are valid and binding on respondent 1.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:

4. The respondents are members of a Hindu joint family. Respondent 2 (defendant 1) is the father, and respondents 1 and 3 (plaintiff and defendant 2 respectively) are the sons. The family became indebted and respondent 2, as father and manager of the family, made certain alienations to which the other respondents were parties. Respondent 1, however, was a minor at the time, and was represented in those transactions by his father as his guardian. The alienations were made to pay antecedent debts and they would, under Hindu law, be binding on the sons unless it was proved that the debts were incurred by the father for illegal or immoral purposes. An attempt was made to prove this but respondent 1 did not succeed in establishing it. His main contention, however, was that the father had become divided from his sons at the dates of the alienations, because, previously thereto, he had executed a deed of settlement in respect of the disputed properties in favour of his mother, which in substance was a deed of partition effecting a disruption of the joint family.

5. Respondent 2's father, Venkata Reddi, died in 1907, having his widow Seethamma and his only son respondent 2. He left some immovable property. Respondents was the only member of the family until the birth of respondent 3 in 1908 Respondent 2 incurred certain debts and made certain alienations by way of mortgages and sales.

6. On 3 - 6 - 1914 respondent 2 executed a document called a settlement deed in favour of his mother, giving her a life interest in the land mentioned in the document for her maintenance, with a stipulation that after her death the land was to revert to the family.

7. The material portion of the document is as follows: "As you are my mother and therefore I am bound to protect" ("maintain" as translated by the trial Court)

"you, the properties worth about ten thousand rupees . . . belonging to me . . . have been given away this day to you who are my mother and put in your possession. You shall therefore henceforth safeguard the said properties. Out of the debts contracted by me from others for the expenses of my family, the debt (specified in the document) shall be discharged by you . . . You shall as you please enjoy the said properties during your whole lifetime without subjecting the same to alienation and subject to the aforesaid conditions. It is settled that after your lifetime the said property should again pass to my family."

8. The main question in this appeal is whether this document is, as it purports to be, a maintenance deed in favour of the mother, or whether it effects a separation of respondent 2 from his sons, respondents 1 and 3, and whether by reason of this deed the property ceased to be the property of the joint family consisting of respondents 1 to 3.

9. Respondent 1 was born in 1917. Subsequently in 1918 respondent 2 applied to the Court to be adjudicated an insolvent.

10. On 8 - 1 - 1919, the mother of respondents 1 and 3, acting as guardian, brought Suit No. 6 of 1919 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Coconada against respondent 2, the Official Receiver, the alienees and creditors of respondent 2. The suit was to obtain a declaration that the debts and alienations made by