The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of clear and unambiguous recitals in a partition document to determine the intention of the parties and the character of undivided property.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The suit has been brought on the allegation that the plaintiffs deceased husband and the 1st 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 tee 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 1st 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 controversey 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 January 13, 1926, and was completed on February 25, 1926 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, en February 16, 1929. The present action was commenced on April 5, 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 be 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 Annavi v. Narayana Annavi A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 201 : 68 Ind. Cas. 451 : 30 M.L.T. 255 : (1922) M.W.N. 399 : 45 M. 489 : 26 C.W.N. 929 : 43 M.L.J. 428 : 16 L.W. 639 : 214 Bom. L.R. 1209 : 20 A.L.J. 839 : 37 C.L.J. 15 : 49 I.A. 168 (P.C.) their Lordships of the Judicial Committee, after referring to Appovier v. Rama Subba Aiyan 11 M.I.A. 75 : 8 W.R. P.C. 1 : 1 Suther P.C.J. 657 : 2 Sar. P.C.J. 218 : 20 E.R. 30 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 Annavi v. Narayana Annavi A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 201 : 68 Ind. Cas. 451 : 30 M.L.T. 255 : (1922) M.W.N. 399 : 45 M. 489 : 26 C.W.N. 929 : 43 M.L.J. 428 : 16 L.W. 639 : 214 Bom. L.R. 1209 : 20 A.L.J. 839 : 37 C.L.J. 15 : 49 I.A. 168 (P.C.). 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 t