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

....Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly on January 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he judgment proceeded at great lenght 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 Lak....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ative and their Lordships have no materials 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as his branch of the family was concerned, 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....