Ramaprasada Rao, J.-The first Defendant in O.S. No. 80 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore is the appellant.

2. The second defendant and the four minor plaintiffs constituted a Hindu undivided family. The second defendant is the son of one Thandavaraya Mudaliar who besides his only son, namely, the second defendant, had two daughters. He died in 1958 leaving behind him Schedule A properties which are the only properties available in the family. After Thandavaraya’s death, under the Hindu Succession Act, the two daughters also had a right in the properties so left by their father. It appears that the daughters wanted their share in their father’s property. Though for the purpose of enumeration, there are two items in the A Schedule, it is conceded that the second item in the A-Schedule is neither valuable nor useful property. In fact, the parties went to trial as if the one property which was available for partition and which was valuable indeed was item 1 of the A Schedule. When the daughters of Thandavaraya demanded from the second defendant their legitimate share in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, the second defendant had no option except to raise a l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document