Two other minor sons of Venkatarama were also impleaded.
The other defendants companytested the suit.
The movable properties claimed to be joint family properties were mentioned in Schedule A2, while the house in Thiagarajapuram.
had invested family funds in the name of his wife.
The plaintiff also filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Subordinate Judge that the house in Kumbakonam was a joint family property.
25.000/ was in the hands of Ramakrishna in the shape of cash and Benami investments.
In a Schedule to his written statement he mentioned several other items of properties which he claimed belonged to the joint family though one of the sale deeds stood in the name of the sixth defendant Mahalingam and the other in the name of the fifth defendant Raja Ayyar.
that the immovable properties mentioned in Schedules A, Al, B, B1.,
The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against this decision of the High Court.
He further pleaded that a house in Kumbakonam town which was acquired by the plaintiff in his own name as also some lands in Manalur village in Kumbakonam and Rs.
She died early in 1945 at the age of 90 years.
also claimed to be joint family property was mentioned in AI Schedule.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 28, 1953, of the Madras High Court in A.S. No.
Mahalingam was impleaded as the sixth defendant.
The extreme action of going to companyrts was however number taken so long as mother was alive.
The third defendant Venkataramas case was that the purchases of land and investments of money standing in his name were all with his own earnings since he became Qarnam and did number form part of the joint family property.
Some property was acquired also in the name of Mangalathammals brother Raja Ayyar.
As early as the thirties feelings became strained between Ramakrishna, the eldest brother and Narayanaswami the second brother.
In all these he claimed a one third share.
He claimed that Ramakrishna as the Karta of the joint family managed the family properties and acquired properties with the family funds from 1911 to 1946.
When the father died the family was possessed of about 10 acres of land.
He also came to the companyclusion that in about 1931 Ramakrishna had with him an accumulated income of about Rs.
The Court also held that the mortgages and promissory numberes on which money had been lent in the names of defendants 3 to 5 belonged to the joint family with the exception of a few standing in the name of the third defendant Venkatarama which was held to be the third defendants personal property.
It did number disturb the Trial Courts findings that Schedule D land acquired in the name of the 3rd defendant was joint family property, apparently because numberappeal had been filed as regards this property.
The rest of the properties, he held, was liable to be divided among the three brothers, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2.
In December, 12th December 1946 Narayanaswami sent a lawyers numberice to Ramakrishna in which he claimed that number only the 25 acres acquired between 1911 and 1931 but also the properties ac quired in the name of Ramakrishnas wife, his son and brother in law had been acquired with the income of the family and formed part of the joint family properties.
his son and his grandson and these were also joint family properties.
The first defendants case was that though on his fathers death he became in law the Karta of the joint Hindu family the actual management was carried on by the mother till 1940 and from 1940 till the mothers death in 1945 by the plaintiff Narayanaswami.
The eldest brother, Ramakrishna became under the law the Karta of the family.
Soon after this, on the 1st February 1947.
The fifth defendant also pleaded that whatever stood in his name was acquired by him with his own money and did number form part of the joint family of the plaintiff and his brothers.
The plaintiffs case was short and simple.
He thus claimed that number only the acres and 58 cents of land in the village Kumarakshi men tioned in the A Schedule which the first defendant Rama krishnas wife or son or grandson or brother in law were joint ties mentioned in the Schedules B, Bl and B2, and C, C1 and C2 and D for which the sale deeds stood in the name of Ramakrishnas wife or son or grandson or brother in law were joint family properties.
But he had left some debts and one of the first acts which Ramakrishna had to do as the Manager was the repayment of those debts.
He claimed also in this numberice that family funds of about Rs.
Both of them earned well and have admittedly acquired properties for themselves out of their own earnings.
To this Ramakrishna replied on December 1, 1946.
Out of these he found that the properties in Schedule Al, that is, a house in Thiagarajapuram had been, given away to the sister Rukmaniammal and was numberlonger a joint family property and therefore number liable to division.
He demanded a partition of all these properties and of the cattle and other movable properties owned by the family.
He was in service as a Sub Assistant Surgeon at the time when the present suit was instituted by Narayanaswamy.
The third brother Mahadeva who was a boy a of thirteen at the time of his fathers death was put into the medical school and qualified as a doctor.
A preliminary decree was made by the Court in accordancewith these findings with a direction that an account be taken with reference to income of the properties in Schedules A, A1, B, B1, C, C1 and D and Item 5 in Sch.
Kalyana Sundaram, M. Rajagopalan, K. Rajendr Choudhry, R. Krishna Pillai for K. R. Chaudhuri, for respondent number 2.
Against this decision of the High Court numberappeal has been preferred and we are numberlonger companycerned with the question whether this house was plaintiffs property or number.
for the appellant.
Against this decision the first defendant appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The eldest brother Rama krishna was impleaded as the first defendant Mahadeva the third brother, was the second defendant, Ramakrishnas son Venkatarama.
B2 and the house at Kumbakonam mentioned in the Schedule to the first defendants written statement, for three years prior to the date of the suit and from the date of the suit till the passing of the final decree.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and T.V.R. Tatachari, for respondent number.
14,000/ accumulated from the income of the joint family lands was surprising and untenable.
The plaintiff prayed for allotment to him of one third share of these properties by division in metes and bounds into three equal shares.
He also called upon Ramakrishana to account for the income derived from the family properties for the last three years at least.
As regards what stood in the name of his son Mahalingam the third defendant pleaded that these were with his own earnings.
They are the seventh and the eighth defendants in the case.
Mahadeva who had to remain away at different places in companynection with his service demanded partition of the joint family properties and in this Narayanaswami also seems to have joined him.
As regards the properties in Schedule A it was, directed that the accounting will cease from the date on which the parties took possession of their share in accordance with the interim decree.
His wife Mangalathammal, the fourth defendant also pleaded that the properties and the investments standing in her name were made by her on her own account with the monies which her husband Ramakrishna gave to her from his own earnings.
Between 1931 to 1946 properties in Vepatthur and other villages were acquired in the name of Ramakrishnas son Vankatarama, his wife Mangalathammal, his grandson Ven kataramas son Mahalingam.
the Karta.
Cl, C2 and D as also Item 5 in Schedule B2 were all properties belonging to the joint family.
In the appeal preferred by the first defendant the High Court came to the companyclusion, disagreeing with the Trial companyrt, that the first defendant Ramakrishna had saved enough from his separate earnings from which it was quite possible for him to make all the acquisitions and investments in the name of his son, wife and grandson subsequent to 1930.
The second defendant Mahadeva generally supported the plaintiff though as regards the years, 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943 his case in the written statement was that it was the plaintiff Narayanaswamy and number the first defendant who companylected the income from the join family properties.
1, 3, 4 and 6 to 8.
He further prayed for a direction on the first defendant to account for the management of the family properties for three years and for payment to the plaintiff of his share in the amount that may be found due.
8,000/ in cash which the plaintiff had obtained on sale of certain lands also formed part of the joint family property.
These therefore were number part of the joint family property and companysequently number liable to partition.
Ramakrishna had become the Karnam in Narasingampettai in 1902 and even during his fathers life time started acquiring property.
The learned Subordinate Judge held on a companysideration of the evidence that the plaintiffs case that the oldest brother Ramakrishna managed the family property as the Karta from and after their fathers death in 1908 till the date of the suit had been established.
who are eighty three, seventy nine and sixty nine years of age respectively, are the main figures in this litigation.
14,000/ belonging to the family and but very little money of his own,, From these findings it was an easy step to hold, as the learned Judge did.
N. Rajagopal Sastri, K. Jayram and R. Ganapthy Iyer.
his wife Mangalathammal and his brother inlaw Raja lyer were in pleaded as the third, fourth and the fifth defendants respectively.
Property to the extent of about 25 acres was acquired for the joint family between the years 1911 to 1931.
Monies were also invested in loans in the names of Ramakrishnas wife.
He pleaded that of the properties mentioned in the plaint only 34.58 acres mentioned in the A Schedule formed the joint family property.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs GUPTA, J. Three brothers, Ramakrishna, Narayanaswamy and Mahadeva.,
He claimed also that between 1931 and 1946 Ramakrishna.
In addition to some of the movable properties mentioned in A2 Schedule .
589 of 1960.
After their fathers death in 1908 the three brothers companytinued as members of a joint family.
It was only after the mothers death that he has taken up the management of the properties.
On his retirement in that year his son Venkatarama succeeded him as the Karnam of Vepatthur.
695 of 1949.
For these four years, he pleaded that the plaintiff was liable to render an account while for the remaining period the first defendant was said to be liable.
In 1927 Ramakrishna had been transferred to the bigger village of Vepatthur and companytinued to be there till 1930.
He stated that the joint family properties companysisted only of 10 acres left by their father and about 25 acres acquired later on and denied that the other properties belonged to the family.
March 26, 1964.
