Ramaprasada Rao, J.- Late Velayutham:. Pillai had three sons, T. V. Velmurugiah Pillai, the first defendant, K. V. Lakshmanaperumal, the plaintiff, and Ramasubramaniam, the last two being admittedly twins, Velayutham Pillai died in the year 1930 leaving behind him his wife Gomathiammal and daughter Shanmughathammal besides his three sons of whom two were minors. After his death, under the original of Exhibit A-l, dated 24th December, 1942 a partition was effected as between the defendant, the plaintiff and the said Ramasubramaniam, the latter two as minors being represented by their mother and natural guardian Gomathiammal. We may at once record that on the date when Velayutham died, in 1930, Gomathiammal, as widow, had only a right of maintenance from the joint family properties. Under the partition deed Exhibit A-l certain properties, were earmarked in lieu of maintenance of their mother Gomathiammal and it was also agreed that after the death of Gomathiammal, one of the properties, which is the suit property, mentioned therein, was to be divided equally between the plaintiff and the first defendant and in, consideration thereof, Ramasubramaniam should be given owelty to equalise his share. The plaintiff’s case is that the said partition was given effect to and was acted upon. Gomathi Ammal died on 14th August, 1966. The case of the plaintiff is that he spent for her protracted illness as also for her funeral expenses. After the death of Gomathiammal, finding that the first defendant was attempting to set up an exclusive title to the suit property, the plaintiff came to Court, after issuing the suit notice Exhibit A-32, dated 26th September, 1966, demanding partition, with the present suit seeking for a partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit house in accordance with the terms of Exhibit A-l. The first defendant raised a very curious contention. According to him, the plaintiff and his twin brother Ramasubramariam, were majors at the time when Exhibit A-l was entered into and, therefore, the entire arrangement by which the partition was effected is ab initio void. His second contention was that the plaintiff, subsequent to the partition as above, went in adoption to another family and, therefore, disentitled himself to claim a share in the suit house. The third contention, of his was that certain properties, which ought to have been brought into the hotchpot for the purpose of partition between himself and the plaintiff not having been so brought into it by the plaintiff and deliberately avoided, the suit is bad for partial partition. One other contention was also raised that Gomathiammal secured an interest under the partition deed Exhibit A-l, which interest was enlarged by the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, and that, therefore, section 14 (1) of the Act would apply and not section 14 (2) therein. Lastly, a claim was made by the first defendant that he spent certain amounts towards the medical treatment and funeral expenses of his mother and that in any event he should be reimbursed by the plaintiff to which the plaintiff also made a counter claim stating that he equally, if not more, spent, towards such medical and funeral expenses.

2. Defendants 2 to 6 have been added as party defendants to the action as sons of the first defendant and they adopted the written statement of the first defendant; Apart from sailing with their father, defendants 2 to 6 raised an additional ground of defence to the effect that Exhibit A-l was signed by their father under the influence of his mother and their uncle, the husband of Shanmugathammal.

3. On these contentions, the following issues and the additional issue were raised by the defendants:

1. Whether the partition deed is invalid in law and plaintiff cannot claim any right in the suit property on the basis of the partition deed?

2. Whether the plaintiff cannot claim any right in the suit property, in view of his adoption in another family?

3. Whether the defendant is l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document