A member of a joint Hindu family can bring about his separation in status by a definite and unequivocal declaration of his intention to separate himself from the family and enjoy his share in severally. The process of manifestation of intention to separate may vary with circumstances and it is not necessary that the intention to separate should be in writing.

JUDGMENT:- The plaintiff in O.S. No.331 of 1963 on the file of the court of the District Munsif of Arni, is the appellant herein. In the trial court, there were two suits, O.S. No. 274 of 1963 filed by the son against the father and daughter, and O.S. No.331 of 1963 filed by the father and daughter against the son. O.S. No.274 of 1963 was a suit for declaration of title and for an injunction restraining the father and daughter from Interfering with his possession and O.S. No.331 of 1963 was a suit for partition and separate possession of the father's half share and for allotment of that half share to his daughter - the second plaintiff in that suit, and for other reliefs.

2. The allegations in O.S. No.274 of 1963 were, that the plaintiff was the son of the first defendant and the second defendant was the daughter of the first defendant and sister of the plaintiff; and that the plaint A and B schedule properties belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff and the first defendant; that while they were living together, misunderstandings arose between women-folk and in 1948 the joint family properties were divided, the A schedule properties being allotted to the share of the son and the B schedule properties to be enjoyed by the father and his wife for their life-time without any power of alienation and after their lifetime to go to the son absolutely. The plaintiff's case is that this arrangement was given effect to and the plaintiff (son) has also prescribed his title by adverse possession; that while the first defendant, the father, was in such enjoyment of the properties, the plaintiff allowed him to mortgage one item of the B schedule properties for maintenance; that the plaintiff's mother died in or about 1961 and after her death the father gave up possession of the B schedule properties in favour of the son in order to discharge the mortgage and that he alone was maintaining the first defendant. The plaintiff alleged that while so, the second defendant, who is the sister of the plaintiff, obtained a settlement from the father, who was mentally deranged; that the abovesaid settlement deed was obtained by coercion; that the first defendant had no manner of right in the suit properties and that the settlement deed executed by him was null and void.

3. The first defendant (the father) filed a written statement in that suit, contending that there was no partition in 1948; that after his wife's death in or about 1961, he was not cared for; that he left for his daughter's house and was living with his daughter, the second defendant, and while living there, he executed a settlement deed by which he gave half share in the suit properties to his daughter; that the settlement deed was perfectly valid and there was no coercion or undue influence over him and that the suit should be dismissed.

The second defendant (the daughter) adopted the written statement of the first defendant.

4. The case of the plaintiffs (the father and the daughter) in O.S. No.331 of 1963 was similar to the written statement filed by the father in the suit O.S. No.274 of 1963, filed by the son. The further contention raised by the father was that the son was not treating him fairly and his position became intolerable, resulting in his leaving for his daughter' house; that he was expressing his desire to divide the properties for about a year prior to suit, that he was actually divided in status from the son, that he thereafter executed the settlement deed on 11-2-1963 in favour of his daughter and put her in possession and that the case put forward by the son was absolutely false. In this suit, the son filed a written statement, more or less on the same lines as the plaint in the suit filed by himself. During the pendency of the suits, the father died and the daughter was recognised as his legal representative.

5. The trial court held that the partition pleaded by the son was not true, that the allotment in the manner pleaded by him was also not true, tha