The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between coparcenary and self-acquired property under Hindu Law, emphasizing the need for abandonment or a family arrangement to establish a claim in the property.

M. Chockalingam, J.

1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing a suit in C.S.No.1264 of 1990.

2. The appellants as plaintiffs have laid the action with the following allegations:

(a) The defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of Humlal Dalmia. The first plaintiff is the wife of the third defendant, while the second plaintiff is the adopted son of the third defendant and the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff and the third defendant married in 1946, and they did not have any child. They adopted the second plaintiff as per the Hindu vedic rites, and it was also registered in accordance with law and by a deed of adoption dated 15. 1973. The second plaintiff is none other than the grandson of the second defendant through his daughter Sumitra Gupta. The second plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 along with the third defendant constituted a joint Hindu Undivided Family, and it has a property situate at No.1, Janakiraman Street, West Mambalam, Madras, besides other movable properties worth Rs.75 lakhs. The third defendant though was a coparcener along with the 2nd plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2, got infatuated towards one lady by name Bhagyam and released all his rights under an oral family arrangement. He has been living with the said Bhagyam from 1979. He has no manner of right over the said property by conduct and arrangement. The second plaintiff being the legally adopted son of the third defendant and the first plaintiff, is entitled to succeed as a coparcener to the joint family properties and is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit properties. The business of M/s.Dalmia Private Ltd. is also a joint family business, and the plaintiffs are entitled to accounting in the said business and also entitled to 1/3rd share in the said business. The first plaintiff being the wife of the third defendant, is not entitled to a share in the property, but however, she is entitled to maintenance and consequently a charge over the joint family property for her maintenance.

(b) In the year 1983, the defendants made an unsuccessful attempt to sell the suit property. At that time, the plaintiffs made an advertisement in The Hindu on 11. 1983, to the effect that the 2nd plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the ancestral property, thus cautioning the public the real position. In the middle of 1990, a further attempt was made by the defendants to sell the property. A notice was issued by the plaintiffs on 19. 1990, calling upon the defendants to divide the property and hand over 1/3rd share to the 2nd plaintiff. But, the defendants have not cared to do the same. The plaintiffs are in possession of the property, and they are also living in the said premises for over a number of years. Hence, the suit.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendants 3, 5 and 6 by filing separate written statement. They alleged that there is absolutely no cause of action for the plaintiffs to come before this Court with a relief of partition when the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff, namely the third defendant herein, is alive; that the father of the defendants 1 to 3 is Chunnilal Dalmia and not Humlal Dalmia; that these defendants are entitled to the suit property which was purchased by their father; that the third defendant left the matrimonial home because of ill-treatment meted out to him by the first plaintiff, and started living separately from 1979; that it is denied that the third defendant released all his rights under an oral family arrangement; that there was no such arrangement at all; that so long as the third defendant is alive, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief; that the said Bhagyam is an employee of the third defendant; that the third defendant was running a business under the name and style M/s. Himalaya Industries; that if at all the first plaintiff is entitled to maintenance, it can be only against the third defendant and not against other defendants or their p