On this finding, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the trial companyrt and dismised the suit.
The companymon debt of the family was apportioned between the two branches, and each branch would discharge its share of the debt and interest thereon as quickly as possible.
The object of the deed was to prevent such disputes, and companysequential wastage of property and to preserve the dignity of the family.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 28, 1961 ,of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No.
T. Desai, R. Thiagarajan and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the respondent.
From this decree the present appeal has been filed under a certificate granted by the High Court.
K. Krishna Menon, M. Veerappa, Sreedharan Nambiar, P. Singh and H. K. Puri, for the appellants.
If the manager of any branch allowed the interest to fall in arrears, the members of the branch would appoint another manager in his place.
The family properties were divided into two parts, and a portion was allotted to each branch.
The properties were divided into two shares.
During the pendency of the appeal she died and one Nagaveniamma claiming under her will was substituted in her place as her legal representative.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. By a registered deed dated September 4, 1900, a group of 19 persons forming a joint family with companymunity of property governed by the Aliyasanthana Law of inheritance, formed themselves into two branches and divided the family pro 9 3 3 perties.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In 1953, the members of the first branch instituted a suit against Damamma for partition of all the properties companyprised in the deed dated September 4, 1900, alleging that the deed effected a division for companyvenience of enjoyment and maintenance only and was number an absolute or out right partition The defence of Darnamma was that the deed effected an outright partition.
M 70 of 1956.
The second branch companysisted of the descendants of Sarasamma and Brahmi and some descendants of Nemakka in all I 0 persons.
910 of 1964.
The trial companyrt accepted the plaintiffs companytention and passed a preliminary decree for partition.
Darnamma filed an appeal in the Mysore High Court.
She was a nissanthathi kavaru, 70 years old having numberdescendants.
The High Court held that the deed dated September 4, 1900, effected an out right partition.
The first branch companysisted of Nemakka and the rest of her descendants and her sister Sivadevi in all 9 persons, In 1953, Damamma was the sole surviving member of the second branch.
