KRISHNA PILLAI PARAMESWARAN PILLAI Vs. ANANTHU AMMA BHAGAVATHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed this suit for declaration of title of his sub-tarwad over the plaint propertie According to him they belonged to the sub-tarwad consisting of himself, his sister one Bhagavathi Amma and her children. The plaintiff had an elder brother by name Krishna Pillai Velayudhan Pillai who died on 32nd Mithunam 1106. He was the Karnavan of his sub-tarwad from 1084. The plaint properties are said to have been acquired by Velayudhan Pillai out of the income from the tarwad properties and also out of funds belonging to the tarwad and realised by him. The 1st defendant is said to be Velayudhan Pillais wife and defendants 2 and 3 his children. The 4th defendant is stated to be his concubine and defendants 5 to 7 her children. The partition in the main tarwad took place under Ext. A in 1084. The plaintiffs father who belonged to a rich tarwad had given valuable ornaments and vessels to the plaintiffs mother and was maintaining all the members of the tarwad till his death. Velayudhan Pillai was a peon in the old Town Improvement Committee and he was getting a salary of R6 a month. The acquisitions were made during his karnavanship. After his death disputes arose between the 4th defendant on the one hand and the Seshakars on the other and this resulted in criminal cases and summary proceeding The summary proceedings in respect of the house in the plaint properties ended in the 4th defendants favour wereas the other properties were left in the possession of a receiver till the disputes between the parties were settled by a regular suit. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration of the rights of the plaintiffs sub-tarwad over the plaint properties and for recovery of possession of the same.

(2.) Defendants 4 to 7 filed a joint written statement. They contended that the plaint properties were the separate acquisitions of the deceased Velayudhan Pillai, with his own separate and self acquired funds, that the sub-tarwad had no right over the same, that all the members of the sub-tarwad were necessary parties to the suit, that the 1st defendant was only a concubine of Velayudhan Pillai, that her relationship with Velayudhan Pillai was dissolved in 1086, that Velayudhan Pillai then married the 4th defendant in 1087 legally, that defendants 5 to 7 were his legitimate children, that they were entitled to all the separate and self acquired properties of Velayudhan Pillai, that there was no sufficient income in the tarwad to leave any surplus after meeting the ordinary necessities with which properties could be acquired, that the plaintiffs father had not given any ornaments or vessels as alleged, that Velayudhan Pillai was maintaining all the members of the tarwad, even out of his own funds, that he had means of earning separate income, that the 4th defendant was helping him in making such earnings, that the sub-tarwad had no rights over the plaint properties, that besides the properties involved in this suit they had filed a suit O. 56 of 1118 in the same court for a declaration that the other properties of Velayudhan Pillai included in that suit belonged to them, that this suit was barred by limitation and res judicata and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.

(3.) By a replication the plaintiff denied all these special allegation