Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.-These two appeals arise out of the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram in O.S. No. 52 of 1948. The plaintiff is the appellant in Appeal No. 217 of 1950 while the other appeal is by the contesting defendants in that suit.

O.S. No. 52 of 1948 is a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff who is the undivided son of the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant being his mother. Defendants 3 and 4 are the sister and sister’s son respectively of the plaintiff in whose favour defendants 1 and 2 have executed a settlement deed whose validity is challenged by the plaintiff in the action. Defendants 5 to 7 are the lessees in possession of the suit properties but claimed they might be left out of account. The plaint contains two schedules A and B claimed to belong to the family, schedule A comprising the immovable properties and schedule B comprising the movable properties. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the movable properties had not existed and that they might therefore be left out of account. It is admitted that item 1 of schedule A is joint family property in which the plaintiff has a half share. But the question for consideration is whether the other immovable properties purchased in the name of the 1st and 2nd defendants are joint family properties in which the plaintiff has any share. To -appreciate the point raised it is necessary to set out briefly certain antecedent facts

One Subramania Naicker had four sons Kandaswami, Marimuthu, Arumugha (1st defendant) and Vythilinga. Kandaswami Naicker died before 1905 leaving a son Krishnaswami Naicker. The five coparceners entered into a partition which is embodied in Exhibit A-1, a deed, dated 23rd August, 1905. The total properties of the family were valued at Rs. 4,180. There were debts due by the family to the extent of Rs. 1580 leaving a balance of Rs. 2600. Each of them got property worth Rs. 500 and Kandaswami’s widow was allotted Rs. 100. The property allotted to the share of Arumugha with whom alone we are concerned consisted of a tiled house worth Rs. 450 in Shiyali and a punja thidal with trees worth Rs. 50 making a total of Rs. 500. The property thus allotted to Arumugha in this partition, constitutes item 1 of the A schedule as regards which there is no dispute. There is a clause at the end of the partition deed stating “the respective persons shall share the profits and losses of their respective toddy shop kuthagai”. It is stated that there were two toddy shops which were conducted by the family and that one was. taken by Marimuthu and the other by Arumugha. But it is however significant that no value was attached to these shops as an asset of the family to be divided between the coparceners.

The plaintiff was born in 1927 and his case is that the entire purchases by Arumugha, the 1st defendant, whether in his own name or in the name of his wife, the 2nd defendant, were out of the profits of the toddy shop which Arumugha was conducting as a continuation of this family trade. The purchases of the several items of immovable properties comprised in schedule A (of course other than item 1) started from 1913 and proceeded almost right upto the date of suit. The case of the plaintiff is that all these properties were purchased out of the profits of the toddy shop business conducted by his father though it might be with the assistance of his. mother and that the toddy shop business itself was originally financed by funds borrowed on the security of the admitted ancestral property item 1 of the A schedule. It is on this basis that the plaintiff claims that as the purchases were directly traceable to the aid of family funds, they must be held to be ancestral properties. On the other hand, the case of defendants 1 and 2 was that the bulk of the finances required for the conduct of the toddy shop came out of the funds of the childless widowed sister of the 2nd defendant who gave this couple considerable amount of cash that she had, as well as her je

Click Here to Read the rest of this document