The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a clear and unambiguous indication of the intention to divide from the family, as well as the communication of this intention to the other coparceners, in order to establish a division in status.

SUBBA RAO, C.J. :- This is a plaintiffs appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kakinada in O.S. No. 43 of 1947, a suit filed by the appellant for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two shares and for delivery of one share to him. The plaintiff is the son of the 1st defendant, Venkatasubbarayudu. The 3rd defendant is alleged to be the son of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant Saradamba. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares on the allegation that the 3rd defendant was an orphan brought by defendants 1 and 2 from Vizagapatam hospital and that he was not born to them. The 4th defendant is a tenant in respect of item 2 of "A" schedule.

The defendants, inter alia, contended that the 3rd defendant was born to the 1st and 2nd defendants, and that, in any view, the plaintiff became divided in status from the 1st defendant on 26-1-1916. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the case of the defendants that the plaintiff became divided in status and also found in then favour that the 3rd defendant, was born to the 1st and 2nd defendants. In the result, he dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff has preferred the above appeal.

2. Mr. Bhimasankaram, learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that the finding of the learned Judge that there was severance in status between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was not supported by the evidence in the case. The only document on which the said finding of the learned Subordinate Judge was based is Ex. B-41, the written statement filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 61 of 1912. That suit was filed by Kompella Venkatarao, as the adopted son of a brother of the plaintiffs father, for partition of the family properties. To that suit, he made the plaintiff and also the 1st defendant parties. In that suit, the plaintiff filed the following written statement.

As the argument of the learned advocate merely turned upon the interpretation of Ex. B-41, it may be convenient at this stage to read that document, particularly as it happens to be a short one :

"1. The plaint allegations are all true and valid.

2. It is true that the plaintiff is the adopted son of late Thommannavadhanulu and that the late Thommannavadhanulu died divided.

3. It is true that late Thommannavadhanulu prior to his death delivered possession of the plaintiffs entire property to the 1st defendant for managing it during his (plaintiffs) minority.

4. This defendant has no objection at all to a decree being passed according to the plaintiffs suit.

5. This defendant prays for division and allotment of even the share of the property to be got by this defendant in this suit. He will later on pay the court-fees required therefor."

The question is whether, by reason of the filing of the written statement by the plaintiff, a division in status was effected between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.

3. The law on the subject is fairly well-settled. A definite and unambiguous indication of the intention of one member to separate himself from the family and to enjoy his share in severally will amount to a division in status. But the difficulty lies in the application of the said principle to the facts of each case. That such a declaration of intention could be indicated in any document also does not admit of any doubt. It follows that such an intention may be declared in a plaint, or in a written statement or in any other document. Another condition for effecting severance is that such a declaration will have to be communicated. Whether such a communication is made or not is really a question of fact in each case.

Applying the aforesaid principles to Ex. B-41, it appears to us that such a declaration is clearly recoverable in the document. Venkatarao presumably claimed in the plaint filed by him that be was the adopted son of the 1st defendants brother and he asked for the division of the joint Family propertie