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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document