GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI AND ANR. Vs. MARUTHAPPAN ALIAS SUSINTHARAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 7th and 9th defendants are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 360 of 1971. It concerns with item 4 of the suit properties. The 8th and 20th defendants are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 389 of 1971 and it concerns with items 2, 3 and 7 of the suit properties. Defendants 26 and 31 are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 1363 of 1971 and it concerns with items 13, 14 and 18 of the suit properties. The suit is for partition and possession of the plaintiff's 1/5th share of the suit properties and for recovery of future mesne profits from defendants 7 to 31. The plaint allegations are that the suit properties are the properties of the joint family consisting of the first defendant and his sons who are the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. They are entitled to a one -fifth share each. The fifth defendant is the daughter and the sixth defendant is the wife of the first defendant. The sixth defendant has got a right of maintenance and fifth defendant has got a right of maintenance till her marriage. The first defendant and his brothers partitioned the properties by two partition deeds. The suit properties and other properties fell to the share of the first defendant. The income from the properties and other properties per year was two hundred kottahs of paddy, ten kottahs of gingelly, ten kottahs of cholam, one kottah of blackgram and ten pothis of cotton worth Rs. 2,000. There was no debt to the family. A huge amount could be saved from the income from the properties. But the first defendant was leading an immoral life. He was taking liquor and having illicit connection with other women. He was a gambler. His sons were minors. He has alienated the properties fraudulently without any family necessity. He has executed benami sale deeds. They are not supported by consideration. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 were not benefited by the said transactions. They are not binding on the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4.

(2.) THE first defendant remained ex parte. The 22nd defendant was exonerated. In the written statement filed by defendants 2 to 6 they contended that the plaint allegations are true and that they have paid Court -fee for partition of their shares. The alienations according to these defendants made by the first defendant are not binding on defendants 2 to 4. A sum of Rs. 8,000 is required towards the marriage of the 5th defendant. The sixth defendant is entitled to maintenance and a sum of Rs. 100 each per month is required towards maintenance of each person. 3/5th share of defendants 2 to 4 may be partitioned and a charge may be created with regard to the marriage of the 5th defendant and the maintenance of defendants 5 and 6.

(3.) THE trial Court, after elaborately discussing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the first defendant was not having any immoral connections with other women as alleged by the plaintiff or incurred the debts for illegal purposes. As regards, the binding nature of the debts, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the debts incurred by the father of the plaintiff are binding upon his minor sons.