Ramaprasada Rao, J.-Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the sons of the first defendant and plaintiffs 6 to 8 are the sons of the second defendant. The first and the second defendants are the sons of one Vadamalai Pillai who, in this case has to be considered as the common ancestor. He died in 1926 leaving behind him his widow, Palani Ammal and his two sons, defendants 1 and 2 who were then minors. It is common ground that until the first and the second defendants became majors in course of time, Palani Ammal was managing the family properties. On the evidence on record, it is seen that Palani Ammal herself had to borrow, either by mortgaging properties or otherwise, for the maintenance and preservation of the family properties. After the first and the second defendants became majors and took over the family properties and administered them, they had to, in turn, incur expenses not only in connection with the family but also for purposes connected thereto. In the course of such administration, both defendants 1 and 2 had to borrow on mortgages, promissory notes, usufructuary mortgages, etc. Every precaution, however, was taken in the course of such borrowings by each of the first and the second defendants to take in their respective minor children who are plaintiffs in the action as parties to such borrowings. Necessarily either the first defendant or the second defendant represented such minors and were acting for them as well. Until 1953, the first and the second defendants were joint in possession, food, etc. In a partition action O.S. No. 188 of 1953, thebrothers partitioned the family properties and after effecting such a partition, on 16th April, 1956 each of the branches, represented by the first and the second defendants, was administering and in charge of the properties so taken over by them in such a partition as above. After such a partition, the first defendant represented for himself and his minor sons and the second defendant for himself and his branch of minor sons, did create further encumbrances or sales of the properties taken over by them in the partition. After such alienations were made by the first and the second defendants, either at the time when they were joint or after they disrupted themselves (during the period commencing from January, 1947 to February, 1958) the plaintiffs have come to Court in 1964 seeking for a partition of the joint family properties and challenging the various alienations made by defendants 1 and 2 at the time when they were joint or after they severed their joint status. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 were majors on the date of suit. Plaintiffs 3 to 8 were minors on the date of action. Later, plaintiffs 3, 4 and 6 were declared as majors in toe course of the trial. The main challenge against the manner and mode of administration of the family properties by defendants 1 and 2 as made by the plaintiffs as a whole, appears to be that defendants 1 and 2 were abdicted to evil habits such as drinking and gambling and womanising and that the alienations including the borrowals which they made from time to time and which resulted in a large slice of the joint family properties being alienated for the purpose of discharging such debts, are not binding upon the share of the minor coparceners in the family. According to them, the income from the joint family properties was sufficient not only for the general maintenance of the members of the family but also would yield a surplus therein which surplus by itself is sufficient indicia which would prevent the manager of the joint family from either borrowing or alienating any of the family properties. They would attack the various alienations made between 1947 and 1958 as sales or mortgages or borrowings made by them without legal necessity and certainly, not for the benefit of the minor members of the family. In particular, the plaintiffs would attack the alienations of A to G Schedule properties as not for consideration, not for family benefit and not even for lega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document