K.Sampath, J.: The plaintiffs in O.S. No.148 of 1983 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, filed the appeal. Pending appeal, the first appellant/ first plaintiff died and his mother has come on record as the third appellant. The plaintiffs filed the suit as indigent persons for declaration that the alienations of A to C Schedule properties made by the first defendant father in the names of defendants 2 to 23 were not binding upon the joint family of the plaintiffs and the first defendant and consequential relief for possession of the said schedule properties to the plaintiffs’ next friend, guardian and mother for past damages against defendants 2 to 23 to the tune of Rs.4 1/2 lakhs and for future damages. There is also an alternative prayer for partition and separate possession of the suit properties into three equal shares and allotment of two such shares to the plaintiffs.

2. The case as set out in the plaint is as follows:

The first defendant is the father of the plaintiffs. He married the plaintiffs’ mother Devaki on or about 12.9.1965. Two sons and a daughter were born to them, the sons being the minor plaintiffs. They are the undivided sons of the first plaintiff. The first defendant is the Manager and Kartha of the Hindu undivided joint family. He owned considerable ancestral joint family properties set out in Schedule A. He and his brother entered into a partition deed on 11.9.1969 in which the B Schedule properties were allotted to the former’s share. Of the properties, 8 1/2 acres were double crop wet lands, 15 acres garden lands and the rest were valuable manavari punja lands. There would be an annual net income of not less than Rs.75,000 from the ancestral joint family properties. The family also owned cattle wealth worth not less than Rs.50,000 and they are set out in the C Schedule to the plaint. From the cattle wealth, the annual net income would be Rs.10,000. Except a meagre loan obtained from the Land Mortgage Bank, Karur, by the first defendant for development purpose, there were no debts to be discharged by the joint family. There were no commitments for the first defendant. There was no legal necessity for the first defendant to borrow any amount from anybody. From and out of the income of joint family ancestral properties in A Schedule and also the income from the cattle wealth in C Schedule properties, the first defendant acquired the B Schedule sites for the benefit of the joint family. B Schedule sites were also treated and enjoyed by the first defendant as joint family properties throwing the same into common hotchpot. The first defendant started new ventures known as “The Karur Auto Stores” at Karur, “The Karur Auto Engineering Works” also at Karur and “Shri Ganeshar Auto Stores” at Tiruchirappalli. Later on, the first defendant started “Vijaya Auto Parts” at Coimbatore. Apart from these new ventures, the first defendant also started Shri Balaji Bus Service at Anaikatti, Kerala State. All these ventures were highly speculative in nature and the first defendant did not have any training whatsoever. The family ‘Kulachara’ of the first defendant was only agriculture. Apart from these, the first defendant was addicted to drinking, gambling and womanizing. The plaintiffs came to know that he was admitted in the Christian Medical College Hospital at Vellore in or about 1969 for ill health on account of high degree of alcohol. Again, in 1972 he was admitted in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, for mental disorder on account of heavy alcoholic effect. For the above illegal and immoral purposes and for new ventures, the first defendant without any reason and for no binding necessity alienated the joint family ancestral properties in favour of defendants 2 to 23 and their predecessors in respect of A Schedule properties and also the properties purchased from the joint family properties in the B Schedule. The alienation will not bind the plaintiffs and the first defendant as they were not for family necessi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document