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

....rought by the plaintiffs in the 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 relat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Krishnan Subramanian, minor minor (P.2.) (P.3.) 2. [The 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndia have answered the question in the affirmative and their Lordships have no materials or ground to hold otherwise. 4. Regarding the prayer for the allotment upon partition of Rs. 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9. That notice effected a separation so far 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 belonge....