685 Form the Judgment and order dated the 22nd November, 1963 of the Madras High Court in Appeal Nos 329 and 468 of 1959 S. Nariman, A. Subba Rao, R. V. Pillai and P. Ramaswami, for the appellants.
1 took the agricultural properties, defendant No.
The plaintiffs also laid claim to a sum of Rs.
Item 4 of Sch.
Similarly item No.
243 248 of the Paper Book.
1 which were extremely valuable and gave very rich dividends, where as defendant No.
5 got urban properties number only of the same value but of a higher value.
1 and those companytained in Sch, were allotted to the share of defendant No.
14,000/ .
11,000/ .
A allotted to defendant No.
3 was also a minor.
10,000/ was caused to defendant No.
B l which appears at pp.
700/ per month would companye to near about Rs.
10,000/ were agreed to be given to the mother of the two brothers and the rest, viz.
B 115 of the Paper Book.
Items 1 2 of Sch.
As against this defendant No.
S was allotted the shares of Lakshmi Sugar Mills which was one of the sick Mills running at a loss whose dividends were insignificant.
1 to 4 for companycellation of partition made between the father of the plaintiffs who is defendant No.
601/ per month has been fixed at Rs.
1 and was his friend and adviser.
The Trial Court accordingly passed a preliminary decree for re partition of the movable properties and directed the appointment of a Commissioner to go into the valuation of the assets sought to be re partitioned.
B 3 deliberately omits to mention a sum of Rs.
55,000/ were to b divided between the two brothers, each defendant getting Rs.
1 is a tank fed nanja land is Kurichi village measuring 3.80 acres and has been valued at Rs.
This is undoubtedly proved by Ext.
The learned Trial Judge, however, was of the opinion that so far as the partition of movable properties was companycerned it was ex facie unjust and unfair and the plea of the plaintiffs for re opening the same must succeed.
while the defendants filed an appeal against the decree of the Trial Court directing reopening of the partition of movable properties and thus decreeing the plaintiffs suit to that extent.
father who is defendant No.
A number of other pleas was also raised by the defendants, but it is number necessary for us to deal with them in view of the points pressed before us by the learned companynsel for the appellants.
1 S.M.K. and his major sons defendants 1 and 4 and a minor son defendant 3 who however attained majority during the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court.
3 of Sch.
1 is a house in the Big Bazaar Street and has been valued at Rs.
The suit was resisted by defendant No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
5 was allotted item 2 of Sch.
65,000/ which was a cash deposit alleged to have been kept in the safe and out of which Rs.
4,000/ which would swell into a large amount if we add interest for all these 35 years.
1 and S. M. Ranganatham Chettiar defendant No.
1 the elder brother of defendant No.
Both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed separate appeals before the High Court of Madras.
27,500/ .
13,000/ as would appear from Ext.
16,50/ .
The partition deed with respect to the immovable properties is Ext.
1 S. M. Kuppuswami Chettiar hereinafter referred to as S.M.K The plaintiffs?
5 and defendant No.
Natesan, P. S. Srisailam and M. S. Narasimhan, for L.rs.
5 and that the division of the properties would show that the partition was neither unjust number unfair, both parties having taken equal shares in the immovable and movable properties.
7,000/ because it was purchased in 1938 for a sum of Rs.
A companyes to Rs.
The plaintiffs case was that the two brothers who were members or the Undivided Hindu Family along with the plaintiffs and other minor companyaraceners betrayed the interests of the minors and the division made between them was both unjust and unfair and had the effect of depriving the minors of their legal shares in the properties the lions share having fallen to the lot of elder brother defendant No.
Under the partition deed both immovable and movable properties were divided between the two brothers voluntarily through the aid and assistance of D.W. 3 K. Narayanswami who was the family auditor of defendant No.
96,000 .
B 139 dated March 6, 1938.
It appears that as far back as May l, 1940 the two brothers, namely S. M. Kuppuswami Chettiar defendant No.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the high Court against that part of the decree which dismissed their suit for re opening the partition of the immovable properties.,
At the time when the partition was made plaintiffs Nos.
A were allotted to the defendant No.
S, who were originally members of Undivided Hindu Family partitioned their shares by virtue of a registered partition deed dated May 10, 1940.
The defendants stoutly denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs and averred that there was absolutely numberdisparity in the division of the properties, that numberfraud or undue influence had been practised, that the properties were divided between defendants I and 5 with the explicit companysent of defendant No.
A are the only agricultural properties possessed by the family and the Trial Court has rightly pointed out that whereas defendant No.
Of respondent number 1 and respondents 2 and 3.
The list of properties is companytained in Ext.
The Trial Court framed as many as 18 issues and after companysidering the oral and documentary evidence produced before it held that so far as the partition of the immovable properties was companycerned which was done by sparate document and was clearly severable from the partition of the movable properties, the partition was neither unjust number unfair so as to entitle the minors to re open the partition after a long period.
10,000/ from the cash deposit which is said to have been given to the mother of defendants 1 5 but this claim was number pressed before us ill the companyrse of the arguments.
which on the basis of capitalised value at the rate of Rs.
5 in the year 1940 and the share of the plaintiffs in this loss would be 2/5th i.e. about Rs.
4,000/ .
Other minor claims which were also made before the Trial Court were number pressed before us.
FAZAL ALI, J. This is the plaintiffs appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Madras dated November 22, 1963 by certificate.
2 to 4 were minors and defendant No.
A is a house and site in Ramanathapuram and has been valued at Rs.
5,650/ vide Ext.
That apart the learned companynsel for the appellants has submitted that the document Ext.
As regards the movable properties it appears that the partition had taken place a month earlier i.e. On April 12, 1940 and the partition deed is Ext.
allotted to defendant No.
Under the partition deed two Lists were prepared itemising the properties which were to go to the two brothers.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .
The appeal arises out of a partition suit filed by plaintiffs Nos.
