Court upholds Subordinate Judge's decision granting plaintiff share of family properties. Appeal dismissed as frivolous.

The court confirmed the Subordinate Judge's decision in favor of the plaintiff, granting him a one-ninth share of the family properties. It was established that the business conducted by the brothers was a joint family business, and properties claimed as stridhana were deemed joint family assets. The appeal challenging the joint family property findings was dismissed, with the court criticizing the first defendant's behavior and ordering him to cover the plaintiff's costs. The appeal was deemed frivolous and lacking merit, leading to its dismissal.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Partition and separate possession of one-ninth share.
2. Nature and character of the business carried on by the three brothers.
3. Status of properties claimed by the second defendant as her stridhana.
4. Validity of the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge regarding joint family properties.

Detailed Analysis

1. Partition and Separate Possession of One-Ninth Share
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his one-ninth share of the family properties. The properties included immovable assets, business assets, bank deposits, and jewelry. The plaintiff's father, the first defendant, along with his second wife (the second defendant) and their son (the third defendant), contested the suit. The plaintiff argued that the properties were joint family properties, while the defendants claimed they were self-acquired. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed in favor of the plaintiff, confirming his entitlement to a one-ninth share.

2. Nature and Character of the Business Carried on by the Three Brothers
The core issue was whether the business carried on by the three brothers under the name Gunnaji Krishnan and Bros was a joint family business or a separate business. The plaintiff contended it was a joint family business, while the defendants argued it was separate. The court found that the business was carried on with assets obtained from a partition in 1919, where the eldest brother separated, and the remaining three brothers continued as a joint family. The court concluded that the business and subsequent acquisitions were joint family properties.

3. Status of Properties Claimed by the Second Defendant as Her Stridhana
The second defendant claimed that the properties and bank deposits in her name were her stridhana properties. The court rejected this claim, finding that the funds for these properties came from the joint family business, Gunnaji Krishnan and Bros. The first defendant admitted that the money deposited in his wife's name was taken from the business, nullifying her claim of stridhana.

4. Validity of the Findings of the Learned Subordinate Judge Regarding Joint Family Properties
The appeal questioned the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge that all properties involved were joint family properties. The court upheld the Subordinate Judge's findings, stating there was ample evidence, including admissions by the first defendant, that the properties were acquired from the joint family business. The court emphasized that the managing member of a joint family cannot claim separate ownership of properties acquired through joint family assets and efforts.

Conclusion
The court confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, dismissing the appeal. The first defendant was found to be acting out of spite and vindictiveness, protracting the proceedings and supporting his second wife and her son against the plaintiff. The court ordered the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the suit and the appeal from his share of the assets, while the other respondents were to bear their own costs. The appeal was dismissed as frivolous and devoid of substance.

---