The judgment established the interpretation of avyavaharika debts under Hindu Law and the principles governing the status of properties and will interpretation in partition suits.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. In this suit a very large amount is involved but otherwise this is a typical case. In form the suit is for partition of family property but in truth it is an attepmt by a son with the aid of his father to recover for his family the properties alienated by the latter. The following pedigree explains the relationship of the parties:

Veeraperumal Pillai

__________________________|__________________

| | |

Thiruvengadathan Doraisani Rajagopala Pillai Ammi Pillai |

P.Appasami Pillai= |

Nagathammal. |

______________________|______________

| | | |

Muthusami Shrinivasa P.M. Appasami Nagath-

| Pillai ammal.

|__________________

_______________________|_________________

| |

P. Veeraperumal Pillai P. Sethuram (1st defendant. Pillai.

Rajagopala Pillai,

plaintiff).

2. The plaintiff Rajagopala Pillai is a minor who sues by his next friend. Defendant 1, his father, became an insolvent and his estate is now represented by defendant 5, the Official Assignee of Madras. No relief is sought against defendant 2, who has not appeared to defend the suit and the really contesting defendants are the third and the fourth. Defendant 3 holds a mortgage for Rs. 2,50,000 and defendant 4 for about Rs. 1,24,000, These two mortgages were executed by defendant 1 and the primary object of the suit is to get rid of them.

3. On the 30th March 1915, there was a partition among the members of the plaintiffs family who at that time were (1) P. M. Appasami Pillai, (2) Veeraperumal Pillai (defendant 1), (3) Sethuram Pillai and (4) the plaintiff, the son of Veeraperumal Pillai. By the partition Sethuram Pillai and Nagathammal the sister of Appasami Pillai were given certain properties; some were allotted to P. M. Appasami Pillai and some to defendant 1 as representing himself and his son. Shortly after the partition, on the 11th August 1915, Appasami Pillai made a will in effect bequeathing his properties to defendant 1. On the 19th October 1920, he made a codicil which, however, did not substantially alter the will. Appasami Pillai died on the 4th October 1921. As I have said the mortgage in favour of defendant 3 was executed on the 10th April 1923, and that in favour of the defendant 4 on the 31st May 1924. It is the same set of properties that were comprised in both the mortgages. Four properties were mortgaged, one of them being a property that fell to the share of defendant 1 at the partition and the other three being those that were allotted to Appasami but were bequeathed by him to defendant 1.

4. Mr. Venkataramana Rao for the plaintiff has advanced several contentions. The gist of them is that all the four properties mortgaged to defendants 3 and 4 were joint family properties in which the plaintiff has an interest. These defendants do not admit that the plaintiff has any right in the properties taken by defendant 1 under the will of his uncle. Mr. Venkataramana Rao firstly urges that the partition of 1915 was intended only to separate Sethuram Pillai but that as between Appasami and the defendant 1 it was a sham and a pretence. Secondly, he urges that if there was a partition there was an immediate reunion between the defendant 1 and his uncle. He thirdly contends that granting there was a real partition the defendant 1 should be taken to have thrown into the hotchpot the properties taken by him under the will and that all the properties thus became joint family properties in which the plaintiff has an interest. He fourthly urges that the devise in favour of defendant must be taken to be in his character as the manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his son and that in this view again the plaintiff has an equal right with his father.

5. I shall postpone the consideration of these interesting questions to a later part of my judgment; for, in my opinion, it is unnecessary to deal with any of them as the case may be disposed of on the assumption that the properties jointly belonged to defendant 1 and the plaintiff. So far as the creditors,