The daughters have a right to be maintained and married by the joint family including the father. This right is historically the remnant of an original right to a share in the property itself.

Ramesam, J.

1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The plaintiff is the son of the 1st defendant by the latters first wife. The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant by his second wife. The 3rd defendant is the widow of a predeceased brother of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant: has four daughters by his second wife, of whom the first had been married before and the others were all unmarried at the filing of the plaint. The eldest of these was married while the suit was pending before the District Munsif about four months before his judgment, and the other two still remain unmarried. The seventh issue in the case runs thus:

To what provision, if any, is 1st defendant entitled for marriages of his unmarried daughters?

2. The District Munsif found that the 1st defendant spent Rs. 2,000 including dowry and expenses for the marriage during the pendency of the suit, and that the 1st defendant was entitled to one-third share from the plaintiff. Similarly he fixed Rs. 2,000 for each of the marriages of the remaining two girls to be married and the plaintiffs one-third share was charged on his share of the property. There was an appeal by the defendant and also a memorandum of cross-objections by the plaintiff. Among the points for determination stated by the Subordinate Judge are Point 3, namely:

Whether the plaintiff is liable to contribute to the marriage expenses of the daughters of the second wife of the appellant.

3. and Point 4, namely:

What were the expenses incurred in marrying the daughter of the appellant who was married after suit.

4. On the 4th point, he found that the expenses of the marriage might reasonably be fixed at Rs. 2,000; but on the 3rd point he held, relying on Ramalinga Annavi v. Narayana Annavi (1922) L.R. 49 I.A. 168 : I.L.R. 45 Mad. 489 : 43 M.L.J. 428 that the plaintiff was not liable to contribute out of his share towards the marriage expenses of the 1st defendants daughters married after the date of the suit or to be married. Though the decision in Ramalinga Annavi v. Narayana Annavi (1922) L.R. 49 I.A. 168 : I.L.R. 45 Mad. 489 : 43 M.L.J. 428 (P.C.) relates to the marriage of a male coparcener, he thought that the principle applies also to the marriage of a female member. This Second Appeal is filed by the 1st defendant and before us it was argued on his behalf that all the members of the joint family are liable to contribute to the marriage expenses of the three daughters.

5. The learned Advocate for the appellant in the course of his arguments referred to a verse of Yajnavalkya quoted at p. 239 of Vol. II of Colebrookes Digest (Bk. V, Ch. 2, LXXVII). This verse is also cited in Banerjees Stridhanam, 3rd Edition, (pages 174-5). The verse does not occur in the Vyavahara Adhyaya or Book 2 of Yajnavalkya, but in the Achara Adhyaya or Book 1, where it is verse 105. The translation of that verse of Yajnavalkya and the corresponding commentary of Mitakshara shows that the verse relates to eating and not to divide the property (vide Vol. 21 of the Sacred Books of the Hindus, Yajnavalkya with Mitakshara, page 227). A similar verse oceurs in Vasishta (vide Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 14, Ch. 11 or Dutts Dharma Sastras, page 777) where also it refers to eating. A similar verse also occurs in Manu. It is obvious that: Jagannadha misquotes a verse of Yajnavalkya misreading the word "bhoj" (to eat or to feed) as "bhaj" (to divide) and no argument can be rested on this quotation. I refer to this merely to eliminate it from my consideration in the rest of the judgment.

6. The main contention of the appellant is that daughters are entitled to be maintained by the joint family including the father, This right is historically the remnant of an original right to a share in the property itself. He contends that partition between the male members does not put an end to the right but the members or at least the members of a branch continue to be liable to her maintenance. We have got a serie