Sir John Beaumont.-

This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated the 24th April, 1941, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of East Godavari at Rajahmundry, dated the 1st November, 1937.

The parties are members of a Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The appeal arises out of a suit for partition brought on the loth December, 1935, by respondents 1 and 2, who were then minors, by one Krishna-murti their maternal uncle and next friend, against the appellant, who was their father by his first marriage and the 3rd respondent who was the son of the appellant by his second marriage.

The questions which arise are (1) whether the suit was for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs and (2) whether the property specified in Schedule I to the written statement of the appellant is his separate property or his joint family property belonging to him and the first/two respondents. In the view their Lordships take of the case a further question as to whether respondent 3 is entitled to a share in the joint family property does not call for decision.

It is common ground that down to the year 1917 the appellant, his father and two brothers were members of a joint Hindu family, and that a partition took place between them on the 14th May, 1917, upon terms contained in a partition deed which is Ex. A. Further reference to this deed will be made hereafter.

The first wife of the appellant died in October, 1933, having had two sons, the first two respondents, and three daughters by the appellant, and on the 9th November, 1935, the appellant married a second wife. The second marriage of the appellant was resented by the members of the first wife’s family and by some of the members of his own family, and this suit was filed a month after the marriage.

By the plaint it was alleged that after the death of the first wife the appellant began to lead a reckless and profligate life, that he ran into heavy debts through his immoral pursuits and had been squandering the family funds, that he contracted a marriage secretly with a girl which was considered very objectionable and incestuous by the members of the community and which resulted in a social ostracism of the defendant. It was further alleged that the appellant had committed the following acts of malversation

(a) The appellant borrowed heavy sums without legal necessity or any justifiable purpose or any family benefit, mostly for purposes of his immoral pursuits.

(b) He lent large sums to persons connected with his immoral conduct without any intention or reasonable likelihood of recovering the same, thereby causing heavy loss to the family. The appellant also allowed some debts to get barred and uncollected.

(c) The appellant was spending large sums from the family funds on his immoral pursuits and got the same debited in the family accounts under false entries for fictitious purposes.

(d) He employed in his business relations of his second wife at heavy salaries without any need and allowed them to draw heavy sums from family funds.

(e) The appellant had neglected to get his eldest daughter married though she had attained age and should have been married according to usages of the caste and family tradition more than a year before.

(f) The appellant had developed dissatisfaction and contempt for his children by the deceased wife and treated them with cruelty and exhibited culpable negligence in regard to their needs.

(g) That it was not possible for the plaintiffs and their sisters consistently with their personal safety, family status, and respectability to reside with the defendant or his newly wedded wife.

By his written statement the appellant alleged that the properties shown in Schedule I thereto were his self-acquired properties and that the plaintiffs had no right to ask for partition of the same; that he had acquired such properties by his own individual exertions without the aid of any other m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document