The main legal point established in the judgment is that a partition document should be construed based on its plain and unequivocal language, and extrinsic evidence cannot be received in the absence of ambiguity.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The suit has been brought on the allegation that the plaintiffs deceased husband and the first-defendant became divided and that the plaintiff is therefore entitled to her husbands share. It is also alleged that subsequent to the division the two brothers carried on business in partnership and the plaintiff on that footing claims an account of the partnership business. These mainly are the reliefs that the plaintiff has prayed for and the learned Subordinate Judge has found on these two points that the plaintiffs claim has been made out.

2. The facts may be briefly stated. There were three brothers: Annamalai, Arunachala, the plaintiffs husband and Manicka, the first defendant. They entered into a partition arrangement embodied in Ex. A, which covers 40 pages in print : That is a very elaborate document and the items allotted to each of the three individuals have been set out in great detail. Hence lands, outstandings, jewels, and all descriptions of property have been partitioned and adjustments have been made to equalise shares. The point, however, that has given rise to some controversy is that so far as certain outstandings amounting to Rs. 80,000 odd were concerned, they were jointly allotted to Arunachala and Manicka : as regards the other assets of the family, there has been in the main a separate allotment made to each of the three individual sharers. Subsequent to the partition, Arunachala and Manicka, carried on a joint trade (to use a neutral expression) treating the outstandings jointly allotted to them as pertaining to it. It may be mentioned that the partition to which we have adverted commenced on the 13th January, 1926, and was completed on the 25th February, 1928. Nevertheless the main items having been partitioned in the early part of 1926, the parties regarded themselves thenceforward as having become severed. The joint trade carried on by Arunachala and Manicka after the partition continued till the death of the former on the 16th February, 1929. The present action was commenced on the 5th April, 1929, i.e., within a few weeks after his death.

3. In the lower Court it was contended that the intention was merely to separate Annamalai from the family and that with a view to effect his separation, the shares of the three brothers were defined and elaborate calculations were made. This contention is opposed to the very clear and unambiguous recitals of Ex. A and does not require serious notice.

4. The argument pressed upon us here is, that although as between Arunachala and Manicka there was a separation in respect of the other assets of the family, they must he treated as having retained their joint status in regard to the outstandings jointly allotted to them., That such a result can be brought about, there can be no question : but the point to decide is, is that the effect of the document? In Ramalinga v. Narayana (1921) 43 M.L.J. 428 : L.R. 49 IndAp 168 : I.L.R. 45 Mad. 489 , their Lordships of the Judicial Committee, after referring to, Appovier v. Ramasubba Aiyan (1866) 11 M.I.A. 75, point out that the character of undivided property may be taken away from some part of the estate, whilst as regards the rest the members may retain their joint status see the case as reported in Ramalinga v. Narayana A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 201 . The question is therefore essentially one of construction of Ex. A. Does it lend any support to the contention that the outstandings allotted to Arunachala and Manicka jointly, were intended to retain the character of undivided property? As already stated, in other respects the division was complete and thorough. In regard to the houses, lands, jewellery, and other movables, there was a separate allotment to each of the three individual sharers. Some outstandings were allotted separately to Annamalai. Then as regards the outstandings jointly allotted to Arunachala and Manicka, there is a clear recital that they were to be divided an equal shares between them. Th