1922 (3) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anuary 31, 1910, for a decree for partition in respect of certain moveable and immoveable proparties together with outstandings of a money-lending business on the allegation that they and the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 formed members of a joint undivided Mitakshara family. The following pedigree will explain the relative positions of the parties and their respective contentions. Subramania Rama .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ht referring to the evidence. Their Lordships agreed with the conclusions of the Subordinate Judge in regard to the transaction of 1895 and disagreed with the view of the High Court. This portion of the judgment is omitted as being unnecessary for this report.] 3. There remain now the two questions, one relating to the validity of the two gifts made by Lakshmivaraha to the fourth defendant, Po .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rials or ground to hold otherwise. 4. Regarding the prayer for the allotment upon partition of ₹ 2,000 for the marriages of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, the High Court disallowed the claim in respect of the prospective marriage but allowed it for the expenses of the marriage that took place before the decree in the first Court, on the ground that the joint family status was not dissevered unt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cerned, and no obligation rested on the joint family in respect of his sons' marriages. The decree of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the claim was therefore correct. 5. As regards the properties in Schedules XI and XIII, there are not sufficient materials before their Lordships to determine whether they belonged to the joint family or formed the exclusive property of the plaintiffs. It wi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 1 and 6, who alone impugned the right of defendant No. 2 to a share in the joint family properties, must pay his costs. The plaintiffs' cross appeal will be dismissed with costs. 8. Their Lordships will accordingly humbly advise His Majesty to set aside the decree of the High Court and restore the decree of the Subordinate Judge, subject to the above variation, with the above directions a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X