Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.-This is an appeal against the final decree in a partition suit. The 2nd defendant is the appellant. Himself and the 1st defendant are the sons by the first wife of one Muthu Chetti, the plaintiff being the only son of Muthu Chetti by his second wife, who is the 3rd defendant. Defendants 4 and 5 are the daughters of the 3rd defendant and sisters of the plaintiff. Defendants 6 and 7 are the daughters by the first wife. Muthu Chetti was doing business in cloth and in money-lending and also owned a rice mill. When Muthu Chetti died on 22nd June, 1933, the 1st defendant as the only major member of the family being the eldest took possession of the estate and managed the same. The suit for partition was necessitated by reason of the extravagant and wasteful life led by the 1st defendant, who has been found to have neglected the business and lived a fast life keeping concubines and spending recklessly. The preliminary decree for partition was passed on 10th January, 1942 and the 3rd defendant was declared entitled to maintenance during her lifetime and defendants 4 and 5 to suitable marriage provision and for maintenance till their respective marriages. The 3rd defendant died after the preliminary decree on 17th July, 1945. The preliminary decree further provided that the plaintiff was entitled to an account of the income of the family from the 1st defendant from the date of the death of his father till January, 1934, since the plaintiff was found to have been excluded from participation in the income of the properties. The properties were divided and allotted by the Commissioner.

On a taking of accounts it was found that the value of the joint family properties at the time of the death of Muthu Chetti in 1933 was Rs. 1,38,665-3-0 but the value of the properties that were available on the date of the suit was Rs. 99,667-13-3. The 1st defendant was therefore held liable to account for the difference of Rs. 38,987-5-9 and he was directed to make good to the plaintiff and the second defendant one-third of it, namely, Rs. 12,662-7-3. The value of each sharer was worked out at Rs. 18,425-10-8 and the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant were in addition found entitled to get Rs. 12,662-7-3 each from the 1st defendant. It was also found that the non-agricultural income from January, 1934 upto the date of the suit, namely, March, 1940, was Rs. 43,166-10-8 and the agricultural income for the same period was Rs. 5,635 making a total of Rs. 48,801-10-8. In view of the finding in the preliminary judgment that the plaintiff had been excluded from participation of the family income he was held entitled to recover a one-third share of the income, viz., Rs. 16,267-3-10 from the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant therefore as a result of the final decree was liable to pay Rs. 12,662-7-3 each to the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and Rs. 16,267-3-10 to the plaintiff. All these payments were charged on the properties allotted to the 1st defendant. The maintenance for defendants 3 to 5 was fixed at the rate of Rs. 40 per month, per head. The 3rd defendant was found entitled to arrears of maintenance from January, 1934 to 17th July, 1945 and the amount payable to her was found to be Rs. 5,542-10-8 and the maintenance amount payable to the 4th and 5th defendants till the date of the order in the final decree proceedings, namely, 6th February, 1948, was fixed at Rs. 5,110 and Rs. 6,768 respectively. It may be mentioned that both the 4th and 5th defendants have since been married and therefore there is no question of providing for their maintenance for the future. These three sums were charged on the shares of the plaintiff, 1st and 2nd defendants in the family properties. The 3rd defendant having died, 4th and 5th defendants were brought on record as her legal representatives and they claimed to be entitled to the sum of Rs. 5,542-10-8, the arrears of maintenance accrued due to their mother. It was contended before the learned Subordinate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document