Evidentiary value of statement contained in document.

Sethuraman, J. — This appeal has been filed by the first defendant in O. S. No. 592 of 1974 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The plaintiff by name Ponnuswami and defendants 1 and 2 by name Anga Naicker and Chinnaswamy are brothers. The third defendant, Ranganayaki Ammal is their sister. The fourth defendant by name Palaniammal is the wife of the second defendant. Ponnuswami, the plaintiff filed the present suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to him. The father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 was one Anga Naicker, who had a wife by name Angammal. The father Anga Naicker died on 21st August, 1961, and his wife on 18th June, 1969. The case of the plaintiff was that he was employed in the Special Armed Police getting a salary of Rs. 200 per month till about.1950. that he was sending Rs. 100 to his parents during his period of service and that thereafter he got out of the service and he returned to Coimbatore and assisted his parents. His father who had some ancestral lands, was doing a business in “gunpowder”, which is really a business in explosives used for blasting the earth for excavation of wells. The mother was said to have been doing a business in cotton. There were some savings from these businesses, which were invested in a Bank and on its liquidation it (the Bank) transferred to Angammal 13 acre and 70 cents of land in a village called Neelikonampalayam, which is adjacent to Singanallur to which the parties belonged. Apart from the dry and wet lands, there was a business in running a cinema theatre, which was stated to have been yielding a substantial income. There were also said to be outstandings due to the family, which were traceable to the properties belonging to the family. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed that in the properties described in the several schedules to the plaint, he was entitled to an one-fourth share.

2. The second defendant filed a written statement in which he contended that as far as the cinema business was concerned it did not belong to the family and that it was the joint property of the first defendant and himself. He denied that the family had anything to do with the properties and the outstandings standing in the name of the fourth defendant, his wife.

3. The first defendant, who filed a written statement, after the second defendant's written statement was filed, contested the suit for partition on the ground that the cinema business belonged exclusively to him and that it had been started and built up by him out of his own resources. He did not dispute the right of the plaintiff to his l/4th share in some of the properties which were admittedly the joint family properties.

4. The third defendant supported the case of the first defendant and the fourth defendant claimed that the properties described in Schedule ‘B’ (c) belonged to her and that the amounts described in the plaint as advances in her name were her own. There was also a reply statement. There was also a prayer by the second defendant that he was in joint possession of the properties and that he wanted a division, for which he paid the requisite court-fees.

5. The trial Court framed a number of issues, some of which were framed on three different occasions, after the original issues were framed. For our present purpose, it is unnecessary to go into all these issues. It is enough to set out following issues, which are relevant for our present purpose:

(1) Whether the Ambal Talkies is a joint family business as contended by the plaintiff?

(2) Whether the second defendant is entitled to any and if so what interest in the said Ambal Talkies?

(10) Whether the first defendant is liable to account for the income either to plaintiff or first defendant, (sic) and if so, for what period and in respect of what item

6. The plaintiff gave evidence as P. W. 1 and defendants 1, 2 and 4 as D.Ws. 4, 1 and 3 respectively. D. W. 2 was examined t