The court affirmed that partition of family properties had occurred prior to 1942, establishing individual ownership rights over properties acquired post-partition, thereby negating claims of joint family property.

JUDGMENT :

1. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.43 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivaganga, rendered on 13.03.1992, is the subject matter of the batch of six appeal suits.

2. Late SP.RM.L.Lakshmana Chettiar, a businessman, had three sons, by name, (I) L.Ramakrishna Chettiar, (ii) L.Subramanian Chettiar (iii) L.Kannappa Chettiar. He had his business, in India as well as in Burma, Ceylon and Malaysia. His eldest son, L.Ramakrishna Chettiar, was looking after the business at Ceylon. He was given Power of Attorney by his father in the year 1935 to carry on the business operations seamlessly. At that time, the other two sons were minors. SP.RM.L.Lakshmana Chettiar died on 16.10.1970.

3. Case of the plaintiff:

The suit for partition was filed by L.Subramanian Chettiar who is the second son of Late Lakshmana Chettiar. The partition suit is in respect of properties more-fully described under the schedule ‘A’ to ‘H’. The plaintiff claims that the properties are joint family property held by Lakshmana Chettiar as ‘Kartha’ and that, each one of the sons is entitled for 1/3rd share in the schedule A, C, D and E properties. For the remaining properties, he claims his respective portion based on the title deeds. As per the plaint, the first defendant, being the eldest male member, was appointed as power of attorney by their father SP.RM.L.Lakshmana Chettiar. He had control over the family business in Ceylon. For the purpose of complying the Ordinance issued by the Ceylon Government, a partition deed was created and submitted to the Government. However, no partition, by metes and bounds, was effected in the true sense. The family members continued to live jointly and to carry on the business jointly. The income from the joint family business was shared among them and the surplus income was invested in coffee estates. On 27.07.1962, a YADASTHI was entered between the three brothers, but it was not given effect due to the non-co-operation of the first defendant.

4. During the life time, SP.RM.L.Lakshmana Chettiar, he first executed a Will dated 07.06.1967 bequeathing his share to his wife and youngest son SP.RM.L.Kannappa Chettiar (the second defendant). Later, SP.RM.L.Lakshmana Chettiar cancelled the said Will and he executed another Will on 27.07.1967. According to the plaintiff this is the last will of Late Lakshmana Chettiar. While the fact being so, the first defendant set up a Will dated 05.08.1968 and a Codicil dated 30.08.1968 at Ceylon with concocted facts to claim rights in the properties which were acquired in the name of family members, including female members of the first defendant, from out of the income derived from the joint family income. Only with an intent to avoid agricultural income tax a sham and nominal partition deed was created but never acted. Hence, the suit for partition and consequential relief.

5. Case of the defendants:

The first defendant (L.Ramakrishnan Chettiar), in his written statement, states the averments that some of the suit properties were purchased in the names of the defendants as ‘benami’, are denied. It is true that late Lakshmana Chettiar executed a Will on 07.06.1967 and later, cancelled it on 27.07.1967. However, it is not true to say that, that was his last Will. He subsequently wrote a Will dated 15.08.1968 and a Codicil dated 30.08.1968. The above said Will and Codicil are his last instruments. As per this Will, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are to get 1/13 share equally. The properties, which were purchased after 1941, ar