Patanjali Sastri, J.-

This is an appeal preferred by the Defendants from a preliminary decree in a suit for partition brought by the respondents. The plaintiffs are the sons of the first defendant by his first wife Gangamma. The second defendant is his son by his second wife Kausalyamma. There is no dispute that the parties were members of a Hindu undivided family on the date of suit each being entitled to a 1/4th share in the family properties. The dispute in the appeal relates to the existence and the divisibility of certain assets and the provisions to be made for the maintenance and marriage expenses of the the two unmarried daughters of the first defendant, one of whom was born during the pendency of the suit.

The main contention of the appellants relates to the claim put forward by the first defendant to the exclusive ownership of certain lands, about 12 acres in extent which are now worth a substantial amount. This item was allotted along with other items of family properties to the first defendant’s share at a partition between himself and his younger brother Ramasami which was completed in 1935. The partition was effected by means of an award (Ex. D-3) of certain arbitrators to whom the dispute between the brothers was referred in October, 1932. After dividing the other family properties in equal shares, the arbitrators allotted the item referred to above (which was described in the schedule F attached to the award) to the share of the first defendant as his Jyeshtabhagam.

The award recites:

“As out of individuals Nos. 1 and 2, individual No. 1 (i.e., 1st defendant) is elder and the first born and as individual No. 1 mainly carried on the affairs and much improved the property, we have settled the lands of the value of Rs. 3,035 mentioned in the F Schedule on individual No. 1 as Jyestabhagam and on account of their caste customs and consent given in the panchayathi agreement executed by individuals Nos. 1 and 2, we have agreed to the rate and directed the same to be given.”

The first defendant claimed in the Court below that this item must be treated as his self-acquired or separate property not liable to be divided as between himself and his sons including the plaintiffs. The learned Judge below disallowed the claim. Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, learned Counsel for the appellants, did not, however, contend that the entire property was the separate property of the first defendant. He urged that, so far as Ramasami’s half share in the property was concerned, there was in effect a gift of it by him to the first defendant who must accordingly be regarded as having acquired that share in his own independent right as a donee from Ramasami and it was not, therefore a divisible asset of the family. The argument was put thus: The agreement by the first defendant and Ramasami to appoint arbitrators to partition their family properties effected a severance of the joint status of the family, according to the decisions of the Privy Council in Syed Kasam v. Jorawar Singh1, and Harikishan Singh v. Partap Singh2, and each brother thus became entitled to a separated half share in all the family properties. When the properties were subsequently divided by metes and bounds under the award of arbitrators, the allotment of the entire item now in question, in which Ramasami had one half-share, exclusively to the first defendant as his Jyeshtabagam in excess of what was legitimately due to him operated as a gift of Ramasami’s half share in the item, and such share must, therefore be regarded as his separate property in which his sons can claim no interest. The argument proceeds, in our opinion, on a misconception of the true nature of a partition arrangement under which each co-owner gets a specific property in lieu of his rights in all the joint properties; that is to say each co-sharer renounces his rights in the other common properties in consideration of his getting exclusive right to and possession of specific properties in which the other co-own

Click Here to Read the rest of this document