JUDGMENT:-These two appeals arise out of a suit for partition and separate possession, attacking the alienations made by the father of the plaintiffs. The five plaintiffs are the sons of Guruswami Iyer, the first defendant in the suit. Vembu Iyer, the second defendant, and Ayyasami Iyer, the third defendant, are the elder brothers of the first defendant and they are some of the alienees of the properties belonging to the family of the first defendant. It is common case that there had been an oral partition amongst the three brothers, namely the defendants 1 to 3, in 1943. It is also not in dispute that the first defendant and his five sons (the plaintiffs) constituted a Hindu joint family. It owned certain agricultural lands in Mayuram Taluk, Thanjavur District, to be specific in two villages, namely Melanallur and Arumozhi Devan villages. It also owned two house properties and some lands in Tiruvannamalai. The properties situate in Tiruvannamalai are described as items 1 to 6 in the A schedule to the plaint while the lands in Mayuram taluk are described in the B schedule as items 1 to 37 thereof.

2. The first defendant started alienating the properties from 1945 onwards. The first of the alienations was under Exhibit B-1 dated 20th March, 1945. Under this document, the first defendant sold items 25 to 27 of the plaint B schedule to the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,700. Later there had been several alienations by the first defendant and all the alienees as well as the subsequent alienees have been made parties to the suit.

3. The plaintiffs claimed a 5/6th share in all the suit properties and according to them none of the alienations was binding on them. Some of the alienees contested the suit and some did not,

4. The Court below held that all the suit properties are joint family properties and that all the alienations are fully supported by consideration; but the Court further held that certain alienations were not for binding purposes and that therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to their 5/6th share in the properties covered by those alienations. In respect of certain other alienations, the Court accepted the case of the alienees that the alienations were for binding purposes and dismissed the suit regarding the same. The suit had been filed in forma pauperis and the Court below has directed the plaintiffs to pay half the Court-fee due on the plaint, the other half to be paid by the alienees who did not succeed in proving the binding nature of the alienations.

5. A.S.No.498 of 1969 is filed by defendants 25 to 28 who are the legal representatives of the second defendant (he having died during the pendency of the suit") challenging the decision of the Court below that the alienation under Exhibit B-1 conveying items 25 to 27 of plaint B Schedule is not binding on the plaintiffs. A.S.No. 536 of 1970 is filed by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of the suit in respect of four alienations, namely the one under Exhibit B-20, dated 5th January, 1954 conveying item No. 1 of plaint A schedule to the 10th defendant, that under Exhibit B-23 dated 10th July, 1953 conveying item No. 2 of plaint A schedule to the 9th defendant, that under Exhibit B-24 dated 21st January, 1947 conveying items 1 to 24 of plaint B schedule to the 4th defendant and the last under Exhibit B-16 dated 26th June, 1957 conveying items 29 and 30 of plaint B schedule to the 12th defendant.

6. One of the points raised by the plaintiffs who are the appellants in A.S. No. 536 of 1970 is that the Court below has wrongly directed the plaintiffs to value the claim under section 40 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Originally the plaintiffs valued the suit under section 37 (1) and the Court-fee payable was shown as Rs. 866.75. But the Court held that the plaintiffs were obliged to seek to set aside the several alienations and therefore section 40 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act is attracted and that Court-fee should be paid o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document