Ramaprasada Rao, J.-Defendants 2, 5, 6 and 7 in O.S. No. 109 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, are the appellants. The suit was laid for partition and allotment of plaintiff’s one-fourth share in the properties described in schedules B to 6 in the plaint.

2. The plaintiff’s case is as follows: One Devaraja Chettiar had four sons, the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. He is said to have carried on a business in coconuts and plantains in Tiruvallur town, with the income from the family properties. The plaintiff has set out in schedule B to the plaint all such joint family properties in which the appellants and respondents 1 to 3 as members of the same, are entitled to a share. It is not disputed that Devaraja Chettiar, by himself inherited certain properties, which became joint family properties, of the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 3 after the demise of Devaraja Chettiar. It is also said that certain properties were bequeathed to plaintiff and respondents 1 to 3 under a Will Exhibit A-1 dated 12th August, 1940, whereby one Masi Ammal, paternal grandmother of the plaintiff bequeathed certain properties of hers to the sons of Devaraja Chettiar. The plaintiff’s further case is that defendants 1 and 2, soon after their marriage were living separately for purposes of convenience. Even so, the third defendant was living separately after marriage. The case of the plaintiffis that Devaraja Chettiar provided the first and second defendants with funds and entrusted with them the responsibility of the conduct of the family trade, which the father was running. The plaintiff, who was a minor and was living with his mother, the fourth defendant in the family house is said to have assisted when he became of age, defendants 1 and 2 in the continuance of the family trade. It is also claimed that the first and second defendants were in charge of the management of the joint family properties and in the course of such management, they colluded together and lent moneys on mortgages and promissory notes in the name of second defendant’s wife, namely, the fifth defendant and such instruments now standing in the name of the fifth defendant ought to be held to be for the benefit of the joint family, as the consideration thereunder flowed from such surplus income. The plaintiff’s case is that schedule B-1 property was also purchased in the name of the fifth defendant from the joint family income and funds. It is said that the second defendant from and out of the joint family funds gifted jewels worth Rs.5,000 to the sixth defendant, who is his concubine. Besides this, the plaintiff claims that jewels of the family worth about Rs. 3,000 are with defendants 1 and 2. He would assert that the properties described in schedules C to E.1, are joint family properties and excepting for the debts mentioned in Schedule F, which are to be paid by the family, there were no other debts. A similar assertion is made in the plaint that the properties described in Schedule G are joint family properties in which the plaintiff has an interest and that those properties were acquired with the joint family fund in the name of the seventh defendant, who is the mother-in-law of the second defendant. A positive claim is made that the seventh defendant had no funds of her own to acquire those properties and in this view the plaintiff demands a partition of the properties described in Schedules B to G in the plaint and for an allotment of his separate one-fourth share therein. He had come to Court, since there was no proper response to the suit notice given by him prior to the action.

3. Defendants 1, 2 and 5 filed a common written statement. According to these defendants they never lived as members of the joint family and they had no occasion to enjoy any joint family properties in common. Their case is that the fourth defendant, who is the mother, is in possession and enjoyment of the B Schedule properties which were bequeathed to her by Devara

Click Here to Read the rest of this document