Satyanarayana Rao, J.- This appeal arises out of a suit for partition by the first plaintiff for himself and on behalf of his two minor sons, plaintiffs 2 and 3 by the 3rd defendant. The first defendant is the widow of Alagu Chetti, son of the first plaintiff by his first wife, Nachiammai. Alagu Chetti died on the 15th of April, 1942. The second defendant is the minor son of Alagu Chetti by the first defendant. The first plaintiff, after the death of Nachiammai, married Valliammai as his second, wife. She however died leaving no issue early in 1934. On the 14th of July, 1934, there was a marriage function between the first plaintiff and the third defendant according to what is described as the suyamariyathai cult or the self-respectors’ cult under the auspices of Purohit Maruppu Sangham or Anti-Purohit Association. The third defendant was a widow of Reddi caste at the time, while the plaintiff is a Nattukottai Chettiar by caste. Soon after the marriage function, they lived for sometime in Kottaiyur in the family house. Thereafter, the first plaintiff and the third defendant went to Malacca, where the first plaintiff was carrying on business. The second plaintiff was born on 7th February, 1936, at Malacca. They returned to India later and a female child was born to them on 15th April, 1940. They again went back to Malacca in 1941 and they could not return to India till 1946 owing to Japanese war. But during their stay at Malacca on 15th February, 1942, third plaintiff was born and another female child was also born on 1st November, 1945.

The plaintiffs claimed in the plaint a partition by metes and bounds of the properties specified in Schedules A to D and D-1 and for the allotment of 3/4th share to them. There is also a prayer to direct the first defendant to account for the jewels and cash mentioned in C, D and D-1 schedules, which, according to the plaintiffs’ case, were in the possession of the first defendant. Items 1 to 12 of the D-schedule, were, according to the plaintiffs, left in the custody of the first defendant and her husband for family use and items 13 to 22 of the D-schedule and all the jewels mentioned in the schedule were entrusted to them for safe custody when they left for Malacca. They were all kept in a safe by the first plaintiff in the presence of the first defendant and her husband with a list and the safe was locked with Aligarh lock with four keys, of which one was retained by the first plaintiff and the others were delivered to the first defendant and her husband. But when they returned from Malacca, after the death of the first defendant’s husband, when the safe was broken open, they found the safe empty. When the first defendant was demanded to produce the jewels, she produced two boxes before mediators from her separate room containing some of the jewels mentioned in the C and D schedules, specified in paragraph 7 of the plaint. As regards the rest, she said that she did not come into possession. It is on this basis that an account of the jewels and cash in schedules C, D and D-1, though there is no specific allegation in the plaint regarding D-1 schedule, was claimed. It was also prayed that Rs. 10,000 should be set apart to the two daughters of the first plaintiff by way of marriage provision from out of the joint family property and a Commissioner should be appointed for division of the immovables. Schedule A to the plaint consists of two items of immovable property, Schedule B of silver vessels and schedule C contains a list of jewels, which had fallen to the share of the first plaintiff at the partition effected between him and his brother on 14th November, 1924, as per the partition lists. Schedule D contains particulars of the jewels made in the family by the first plaintiff after the said partition. Schedule D-1 consists of two items-sovereigns 25 and cash Rs. 1,000.

The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2. The plea of the defendants was that there was no valid marriage between the firs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document