I in his written statement traversed all these allegations of the plaintiff and denied that there was any joint family property to which the plaintiff companyld lay a claim.
The other items of immovable property as well as the cash, furniture and utensils were his own acquisitions in which the sons had numberinterest whatsoever.
Appeal by special leave granted by the Supreme Court on the 21st May, 1951, from the Judgment and Decree dated the 13th December, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras Rao and Somasundaram JJ.
Somasundaram R. Ganapathy Iyer, with him for the appellant.
2, who are two brothers, are both sons of defendant No.
2, and that he was entitled in law to one third share in the same.
3 in her written statement asserted that she was number a necessary party to the suit and that whatever jewellery there were belonged exclusively to her.
The defendant No.
I took an appeal to the High Court of Madras.
1, and his brother, the defendant No.
I by his first wife who predeceased her husband.
After hearing the case the trial judge came to the company clusion that properties bequeathed to defendant No.
The defendant No.
529 of 1946 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 20th February, 1946, of the Court of Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O.S. No.
After the death of plaintiffs mother, the defendant No.
15,000 deposited in the name of the first defendant in the Erode Urban Bank Limited that money also belongs to the joint family and the plaintiff is entitled to his share therein.
The defendant No.
They companysist of four items of agricultural land measuring a little over 5 acres in the aggregate, one residential house in the town of Erode and certain jewellery, furniture and brass utensils.
His case was that items I and 2 of Schedule B lands as well as the house property were the self acquired properties of his father and he got them under a will executed by the latter as early as in the year 1912.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3 in the suit.
I by his father should be held to be ancestral properties in his hands and as the other properties were acquired by defendant No.
191 of 1952.
The result was that the Subordinate Judge made a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff and allowed his claim as laid in the plaint with the exception of certain articles of jewellery which were held to be number existent.
As regards the jewels mentioned in the plaint, it was said that only a few of them existed and they belonged exclusively to his wife the defendant No.
I in this appeal for specific allotment, on partition, of his one third share in the properties described in the plaint, on the allegation that they were the joint properties of a family companysisting of himself, his father, the defendant No.
2, who is the brother of the plaintiff, supported the plaintiffs case in its entirety.
1 out of the income of the ancestral estate, they also became impressed with the character of joint property.
Against this decision, the defedant No.
I married again and his second wife is defendant No.
In addition to these it is averred in paragraph I I of the plaint that there is a sum of about Rs.
October 14.
The properties in respect of which the plaintiff claims partition are described in Schedule B to the plaint.
The Judgment of the Court was deli vered by MUKHERJEA J. This appeal, which has companye before us on special leave, is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated December 13, 1949, affrming, with slight modification, those of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, passed in O.S. No.
Somayya K. R. Chowdhury, with him for respondent No.
in Appeal No.
The allegations in the plaint, in substance, are that after the step mother came into the house, the relation between the father and his sons became strained and as the father began to assert an exclusive title to the joint family property, denying any rights of his sons thereto, the present suit had to be brought.
138 of 1945.
138 of 1945.
The suit was companymenced by the plaintiff, who is res pondent No.
It appears that the plaintiff and defendant No.
