Sethuraman, J.-This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 107 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chidambaram. There was one Rengasami Vandayar, who died in or about 1940. His four sons are Booraswami, the plaintiff, Rajakannu, the first defendant, Chinnadurai, the second defendant and Dharmalinga, the third defendant. He owned certain properties. According to the plaintiff the four sons of Rengasami Vandayar were living as members of a Hindu undivided family till about 1964. In that year there was a division of the movables and the respective brothers started separate messes. The parties were, it is said, put in possession of the properties of the joint family for the purpose of convenient enjoyment. The second defendant was alleged to have entered into partition with his sons, defendants 4 to 6, later on under which some of the joint family properties were sought to be divided. According to the plaintiff, some properties had been purchased in the names of defendants 4 to 8 out of joint family funds. The plaintiff, therefore, issued a registered notice to the defendants on 1st September, 1969 to have all the joint family properties divided and allotted by metes and bounds. There was no reply and the plaintiff, therefore, came forward with the present suit for partition and separate possession of his ¼th share in the suit properties.

2. The third defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the first defendant. He admitted that the joint family owned the immovable properties set out in the plaint, and claimed ¼th share in the said properties. According to the third defendant there were other properties also, which were divisible among the brothers.

3. The second defendant in his written statement denied that the parties were members of a Hindu undivided family. His plea was they had already become divided and were in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. It was claimed that the properties described in the II schedule to the plaint were not the joint family properties, that they belonged separately to his branch and that the outstandings set out in the third schedule belonged to his branch. According to the second defendant, a son was born to him by name Jayaramachandran and on 23rd August, 1948, there was a registered deed of settlement marked as Exhibit B-1 under which the properties were settled on his minor son with reservation of provision for maintenance by the four brothers. He was put in possession of the said property. However on 22nd September, 1960, he executed a release deed in favour of the first defendant in respect of some of the properties in his enjoyment and the first defendant similarly executed a release deed relinquishing his rights in the remaining properties. On 10th January, 1962, three lists were drawn allotting the properties, which remained after excluding the properties allotted to the first defendant, among the three brothers, viz., the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 and the parties have been in possession and enjoyment of the respective properties making alienations and exchanges among themselves and others. This written statement was adopted by defendants 5 to 8, except the seventh defendant, who filed a separate written statement making his claims with reference to certain of the properties as individual properties.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge framed several issues, the main one being whether the properties described in schedules I, It and III were joint family properties and whether the partition said to have been effected in 1962 was true. After considering the evidence placed before him, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the properties described in schedule I were ancestral properties, that some of the properties described in schedule II had been purchased out of ancestral nucleus and that the partition in 1962 pleaded by the second defendant was true. As this was a case in which there was a division in status even i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document