K.Sampath, J: The plaintiff in O.S.No.92 of 1981, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge’s Court, Tuticorin, is the appellant in the appeal. The suit for partition declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/11th share in the plaint schedule properties, for final decree by appointing an Advocate Commissioner for dividing the schedule mentioned properties by metes and bounds and converting joint family possession into separate possession and also allotting separate portions to the plaintiff, for a preliminary decree directing defendants 1 to 3 to render accounts for the past and future income and for profits from 31.10.1976, and for passing a final decree ascertaining the amount due to the plaintiff by appointing a Commissioner, has been dismissed by the lower Court.

2. Her case in the plaint is as follows:

She was the eldest daughter of late V.T.V.T.Kanagasabapathy Pillai, the first defendant being his widow, defendants 2 and being his sons, and defendants 4 to 10 being his other daughters; the suit properties belonged to Kanagasabapathy Pillai, who died intestate on 31.10.1976 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his heirs; the properties set out in the schedule were Hindu joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and separate properties of late Kanagasabapathy Pillai - most of them were self-acquisitions of Kanagasabapathy Pillai; the plaintiff and the defendants being co-owners were in joint possession; defendants 1 to 3 were managing the properties, and they agreed to render accounts to the plaintiff; a sum of Rs.4,000 was standing to the plaintiff’s credit in the family accounts and was payable to her forthwith - it was an item of accounting by defendants 1 to 3; defendants 1 to 3 were trying and about to sell the properties without the plaintiff’s consent for a song and complicate matters and multiply litigation; the plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession as also accounting from the defendants, but they were delaying the partition fraudulently with oblique and sinister motives; and, she sent a suit notice on 14.9.1981 to defendants 1 to 3, who received the same on 15.9.1981 did not send any reply.

3. Defendants 1 to 3 filed a common written statement contending as follows:

Properties, set out in the schedule, were the ancestral and joint family coparcenary properties of late Kanagasabapathy Pillai and defendants 2 and 3; they were not the self acquired properties of Kanagasabapathy Pillai, the plaintiff, if at all, would be entitled to 1/33rd share only; in view of the fact, that the shares the daughters were entitled to, were only a flea-bite and in view of the fact that the daughters had been well provided with jewels at one time of marriage, all the daughters gave up their rights in the estate by way of a family arrangement in favour of defendants 1 to 3 in Vaikasi 1979, and also in view of the involvement of estate duty and other financial commitments including family debts to the tune of about Rs.1.5 lakhs - the debts included othi (for the marriages of D.9 and D.10) debt of Rs.17,000 and odd, for payment of estate duty got from Parvathi (D.5), insurance amount of D.1 spent for the family and the debts due to the depositors; a provision had to be made for the discharge of these debts before a partition as per law; no question of management by these defendants arose in view of the fact of ‘release’ by the daughters in their favour; there was no question of rendering accounts; the plaintiff was not entitled to Rs.4,000 as it was only an adjustment of the accounts; even if there was one, the claim was time barred; the alleged sale agreement was got through to discharge the family debts, which were mounting like anything by way of principal and interest, and also in view of the threatened action by the creditors; 14th item in the first schedule, and the second schedule had been sold to Bakyalakashmi and two others, and Varuvel respectively, to the knowledge of the plaintiff’

Click Here to Read the rest of this document