Ramaprasada Rao, J. -The second defendant is the appellant in this appeal Kuppanna Gounder had three sons C. K. Krishnan, the eldest, C. K. Shanmugham, the second and C. K. Kandavel, the third and the youngest. His wife is one Rukkammal. The second son, C. K. Shanmugham, filed the present action impleading his mother Rukkammal as the first defendant, his elder brother C.K. Krishnan as the second defendant and his younger brother C. K. Kandavel as the third defendant, for partition of the joint family properties into four shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff. He also sought for an account as regards the income from items 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint schedule properties and for a direction as against the second defendant to pay the mesne profits from the date of the suit till delivery of possession. In the schedule to the plaint, he included seven items of properties, the first being the residential house bearing Door No. 21, Rangai Goundar Street, Coimbatore, the second, which was originally a house-site but now bearing Door No. 11/7 Ponnurangam Road, R. S. Puram, Coimbatore, the third, Palaniandavar Rice Mills situate in the family house No. 21, Rangai Goundar Street, the fourth and the fifth being Semiya Works, one run in the name of Ganesh Semiya Works, in the family house and the other, Jayanthi Semiya Works at No. 13/188, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore; the sixth item is an auto-rickshaw said to be in the possession of the second defendant and the last one is a bare item of cash of about Rs. 50,000 said to be with the second defendant, which is an accumulation of savings from the joint family income. The first defendant, the mother, filed her statement stating that the plaintiff omitted to bring into the action several other items of properties which are also to be divided amongst the sharers and she enumerated seven more items. The description of those items are as follows:

1. Rajendra Flour Mill with machineries in Uppara Street, Coimbatore.

(2) One auto-rickshaw MYD. 3172 standing in the name of the plaintiff, and a car MDU. 6969 standing in the name of the plaintiff, were disposed of recently. The auto-rickshaw was sold for Rs. 7,500 four months ago and the car was disposed of nine months ago for Rs. 11,500. The said cash of Rs. 19,000 is still with the plaintiff.

(3) Two chits each for Rs. 5,000 were taken in the name of the plaintiff and subscriptions were made from out of the income from the joint family property and the plaintiff bid at the auction four months age and received Rs. 7,500 to which the first defendant stood as surety. The plaintiff is having the said sum of Rs. 7,500.

(4) Rs. 1,000 worth shares (ten shares) in Ananda Kumar Mills, Saravanam-patty standing in the name of the plaintiff for the last ten years.

(5) The life insurance policy taken in the name of the second defendant for Rs. 10,000 by the husband of the first defendant and the paid up amount of Rs. 2,500 was received by the second defendant. The premium was paid out of the income from the joint family property.

(6) The cash on hand with the plaintiff will be not less than Rs. 20,000 besides the cash referred to above.

(7) The cash with the second defendant will be more than Rs. 50,000.

2. The second defendant, who is the contesting defendant, would say that excepting for item 1, 2 and 3, the properties delineated by either the plaintiff or the first defendant are not joint family properties. In the main, his case is that though, at one time, Ganesh Semiya Works was carried on by him in the joint family house at No. 21, Rangai Goundar Street, he later on dissociated himself from the family under Exhibit B-1 dated 21st December, 1957 by executing a release deed in favour of the plaintiff, the first and the third defendants after receiving a cash consideration of Rs. 3,500 and that thereafter, he had nothing to do with the family. His case is that thereafter, he, with the assistance of the funds belonging to his wife, examined as D.W. 2, set up a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document