Claim of contribution from other brother.

JUDGEMENT :- The second defendant in O.S. No.584 of 1972, on the file of the District Munsif of Thanjavur is the appellant herein.

2. The suit O.S. No.584 of 1972 was filed by the first respondent herein for partition and separate possession of his one-third share in the suit property. The plaint case is that the suit property, which is a house, was settled on the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, who are all the sons of one Sivakolundu and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to claim an one-third share therein.

3. The suit was resisted by the second defendant alone. His case was that the first defendant having relinquished his one-third share in his favour, he is entitled to get two-thirds share in the suit property. His further claim was that he had made considerable improvements to the suit property, and, therefore, even if the plaintiff is granted a decree for his one-third share, sufficient provision has to be made for the cost of the said improvements. He also contended that three of their sisters having been married by him by borrowing amounts from various sources, the other two brothers have to contribute their respective one-third share towards the said borrowings.

4. The trial Court held that the plea of the second defendant that the first defendant had relinquished his interest in the suit property has not been established and that the plaintiff and the first defendant have to contribute towards the borrowings made by the second defendant for the marriages of their sisters. In that view the trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiff's one-third share in the suit property and directed the plaintiff and the first defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 1216 each to the second defendant towards their share of the debts borrowed for the purpose of meeting the marriage expenses of their sisters.

5. The second defendant filed an appeal questioning the decree of the trial court in so far as it rejected his plea based on the relinquishment of the first defendant's one-third share in his favour. The plaintiff and the first defendant filed cross-objections insofar as the trial court has directed them to pay a sum of Rs. 1,216 each towards the debts said to have been incurred by the second defendant. Dealing with that appeal and the cross objections the lower appellate court has held that the relinquishment has not been duly proved, that though it has been proved by the second defendant that he has expended for the marriages of their sisters, the plaintiff and the first defendant are not liable to contribute their share as they are not in possession of any joint family property and that, in any event, the second defendant not having made a claim for contribution towards the marriage expenses of their sisters within three years, his claim should be taken to have been barred by time. In this view, the lower appellate court has rejected the appeal of the second defendant and, allowed the cross-objections of the plaintiff and the first defendant.

6. In this second appeal, though the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence on record is sufficient to establish the appellant's plea of reliquishment, I do not see any justification for interference with the concurrent findings of both the courts below on that question. Both the courts below have specifically held, after analysing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, that the plea of relinquishment has not been established by the second defendant and, therefore, the second defendant is not entitled to get the share of the first defendant on the basis of the said alleged relinquishment.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant then contends that, in any event, the lower appellate court is not justified in setting aside that portion of the decree of the trial court which directed the plaintiff and the first defendant to pay their share of the marriage expenses of their sisters, The lower appellate court, as already stated, has given t