Ramaprasada Rao, J.-Defendants 1 and 3 to 6 appeal against the preliminary decree for partition given by the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. Srinivasa Iyengar had two sons, Ramaswami Iyengar and Rajagopala Iyengar. They originally constituted members of a Hindu undivided family. The plaintiff is the son of Ramaswami Iyengar. The first defendant is the second wife of Ramaswamy Iyengar. The second and the third defendants are the son and daughter of Ramaswami Iyengar through his second wife. The fourth and the fifth defendants are the children of the third defendant and the 6th defendant is the husband of the third defendant. The 7th and 8th defendants are the grandchildren of Ramaswami Iyengar born to bis daughter Bhuma, who in turn was the first daughter through his first wife Padmasani Ammal. Thecaseof the plaintiff is that Srinivasa Iyengar, Ramaswami Iyengar and Rajagopala Iyengar formed a Hindu undivided family and when he was an one month child, his mother Padmasani Ammal died and since then, he was with his maternal grand father for the purpose of education. He, however, admits that his father Ramaswami Iyengar spent for his maintenance and education and even for his upanayanam and marriage. The plaintiff retired after entering Government service in the year 1959. His father Ramaswami Iyengar died in 1964 leaving considerable joint family properties. He would concede that Ramaswami Iyengar executed several wills bequeathing properties to him and to defendants 1 to 5 and such wills are inoperative in the eye of law, as all the properties, which were the subject-matter of the wills, were to be deemed and held to be joint family properties. He therefore, ignores the said wills and he claims a 6/15th share in the totality of the suit properties. He also seeks for mesne profits in respect of his share and accounting regarding the same as against the defendants and for a further direction as against defendants 9 to 12 to deposit the amounts lying to the credit of T.S. Ramaswami Iyengar into Court and for costs. In the course of the pleadings, he would refer to an alleged sham legal proceedings in the year 1898 between T.S. Ramaswami Iyengar on the one hand and Srinivasa Iyengar and Rajagopala Iyengar on the other. That was a suit filed by the plaintiff’s father for a partition of the joint family properties as against his father Srinivasa Iyengar and his brother Rajagopala Iyengar. That suit ended in a compromise. Prima facie, under the compromise decree in that suit, Ramaswami Iyengar did not receive any amounts or did not secure any joint family property, but on the other hand would take over the liability to pay a sum of Rs. 260 to his father and brother. Though no properties were actually taken over by Ramaswami Iyengar, yet the plaintiff’s case is that his father was managing the joint family properties during the absence of his grandfather Srinivasa Iyengar and that he was also holding the office of karnam, as a trustee for the family, as that office was originally held by Srinivasa Iyengar and during the course of such managership and during the time when he exercised the office of karnam, which was an enviable one on those days, he secreted large amounts of the income from the joint family and lent moneys benami in the names of his second wife and second wife’s children besides taking them in his own name and these amounts were all set out in the written statement-marked as Exhibit A-4 filed by Srinivasa Iyengar in the suit O.S. No. 65 of 1898 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam and that, therefore, the prima facie recitals in the compromise decree are a make-belief affair. His further contention is that having secured such nucleus from the joint family after instituting a suit for partition, Ramaswami Iyengar, who was a very shrewd gentleman, developed the same by lending it to third parties and thereafter acquired considerable properties either in his own name or in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document