VELUSAMI Vs. VELUSAMI KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 85 of 1953 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai. Plaintiffs and the 4th defendant are appellants in App. Nos. 272 and 425 of 1955 respectively. The suit was one for partition of the plaintiff's share in the properties set out in Schs. A to F to the plaint. The A schedule properties had been dedicated to a trust, and the parties are agreed that the trust was a private one; the only dispute between them is regarding a scheme for management for the performance of the trust. The B schedule relates to the lands, C schedule to a house, D and E schedules of the two outstanding and a business and F schedule to shares in Sri Meenakshi Mills alleged to be owned by the family.

(2.) ONE Chockalinga owned the properties. He left behind him two sons, Verusami and Tirupathi who are respectively first and fourth respondents in A. S. No. 272 of 1955 and 4th respondent and appellant in A. S. No. 425 of 1955. It will be convenient to refer to the parties according to their rank in A. S. No. 272 of 1956. The appellants are the son and grandson of Tirupathi, the 4th respondent, while the 2nd and 3rd respondents are sons of the first respondent, Velusami. Respondents to the appeal are defendants 1 to 4 in the suit. Two others, namely, defendants 4 and 5 represented a collateral branch of the family in the suit, but they have not been made parties to the appeals. Their interest is only in regard to the management of A schedule properties.

(3.) THE case for the appellants was that respondents 1 to 4 formed members of a hindu joint family which owned the properties set out in the various schedules to the plant, that there were some attempts for partition through mediation in the year 1950, and that although a tentative arrangement was made there was no final or effective partition. The appellants stated that they were entitled to their share in all the properties of the family and repudiated the claim to Jyeshtabagam on the part of the first respondent. The fourth respondent supported the claim of the appellants. Respondents 1 and 2 contested the claim. They pleaded that there was a completed partition of the family properties in the year 1950 during which the first respondent made a claim that he must be given increased share (jyeshta bhagam) as a reward for the services he rendered to the family by improving its prosperity, and the mediators who effected by the partition allotted to him, in addition to his share, about 5 acres of land and Rs. 5000 cash. The further case of the first respondent is that the fourth respondent as well as his son, the first appellant, accepted the arrangement, and that they should not be allowed to go behind it. The question whether there was a completed partition in the year 1950, was the substantial issue in the suit. There were also other subsidiary questions in regard to the extent of the properties that would be available for partition.