Difference between ancestral property and joint family property pointed out.

Swamikkannu, J.

1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3 against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 17 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli granting a preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties into three equal shares with reference to good and bad, soil and alloting one such share to the plaintiff and one such share to defendants 4 to 9. Defendants 1 to 3 were directed by the court below to render a true and proper account in respect of the income derived by them from the suit properties to the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 9 from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession of their respective shares to them. The Court below has relegated the quantum of mesne profits to be decided in separate proceedings under Order 20. Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directed that the costs of the suit will come out of the estate.

2. The suit was laid by Sivalingam, the plaintiff (first respondent in this appeal) for partition of the suit properties into three equal shares and for allotment and separate possession of one such, share to him, to direct the defendants to account for the income from the suit properties from the date of suit till date of delivery of possession of one-third share to the plaintiff and for costs of suit. Defendants 1 and 4 to 9 are respondents 2 to 8 in this appeal. Minor respondents 6 to 8 are represented by guardian mother Pachaiammal the 3rd respondent.

3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows: The plaintiff, Sivalingam, Marimuthu and Marudai are the sons of one Sangili Moopan. They constituted members of a joint. Hindu family to which item 1, (ancestral dwelling house) of the suit properties belonged. Sangali had taken 4 acres of land in Kondiampettai on lease from Venugopala Reddiar's estate and the same was cultivated by the father and sons and the family was deriving income and out of their joint exertions, the suit second item (a house at Kondiyampettai) and the third item [a those of 29 cents) were purchased by Sangili for the benefit of the family. Even after the demise of the father, the sons continued to enjoy the leasehold by putting forth their joint efforts, Marimuthu was a person of unsteady and undesirable habits. Hence, Marudai, who commanded the influence of the family members, was in management of the family and its affairs. Marimuthu was in Military Service for a few years and then he was a bus driver in the T.S.T. Bus Company at Tiruchirapalli. He was giving his earnings to Marudai. The plaintiff entered the railway service as a fireman apprentice in 1954, then he was promoted as an A Grade Fireman in 1957, then as a Shunter in 1958 and from 1960 onwards, he has been working as an Engine Driver. His savings from his substantial salaries and allowances were placed with Marudai to make acquisitions of properties for the benefit of the joint family. On some occasions, the plaintiff sent his savings by bank drafts to Marudai. Marudai also used to go over to Hubli and receive the savings, in person, from the plaintiff. When visiting the village, the plaintiff also used to bring money with him and placed them in the hands of Marudai. From out of the contributions made by the plaintiff and Marimuthu, the suit items 4 to 11 were purchased in the name of Marudai for the benefit of the family under sale deeds dated 10.2.1960, 21.2.1963, 22.3.1969, 18.5.1963, 29.3.1964, 12.6.1965, 19.11.1967 and 16.6.1966. Besides from out of the contributions made, a terraced house had been constructed at a considerable cost in portion of item No. 9. The aforesaid acquisitions were made for the benefit of the family with the large contributions made by the plaintiff from time to time for that purpose and also from out of the substantial income from the leasehold properties. All the properties were treated and enjoyed as joint family properties and blended as a unified whole. Rice from the paddy grown in the family lands also was used to be