This cash amount of Rs. 65,000/- is denied by defendant No. I and it is said that this amount might have been hidden money which never came to the share of the parties. D.W. 3 K. Narayanaswami has positively admitted in his evidence that he had made this entry in his ow.1 hand-writing but he scored out this entry as the amount was not available. Both the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore and the High Court have accepted the explanation given by D.W. 3 N•arayanaswami although the explanation appears to us to be prima facie false and unconvincing. Even assuming that this e.itry was made due to some mistake and had to be scored out, we cannot believe that a person of the expert knowledge and status of D.W. 3 Narayanaswami Iyer the Auditor would forget to make a corresponding correction in the total amount which is given below the statemeni of account signed bv him. If the amount of Rs. 65,000/- was scored out, then the total wo~ld be Rs .. 2001161- in-Ext. A-2, but the total shown in pencil in Ext. A-2 is Rs. 2,65,116F which completely demolishes the case of defendant No. I and the explanation given by D.W. 3 that the entry was made due to some mistake. The Courts below have however, relied on a number of circumstances which are purely of a speculative nature, in order to hold that the plaintiffs have not l>een able to prove the existence of the cash amount of Rs. 65,000 /-. One of the circumstances was that according to the evidence of defendant No. 5 the amount of Rs. 65,0001- was taken out from the safe and counted in the presence of defe.idants I and 5 and yet defendant No. 5 did not care to divide it at that time into two equal parts, •aor did he insist on the same. Defendant No. 5 has, however, given an explanation that as his elder brother wanted that this money should be divided later he did not want to join issue on the subject and trusted his elder brother. A perusal of the evidence of defendant No. 5 cle>arly shows that he is an extremely emotional sort of a person who believes in the respect of the family above all consideration. It is,, therefore, n.ot unlikely that defendant No. 5 quietly accepted the advice of, his elder brother to divide the amaunt later on. It was however argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that defendant No. 5 was a shrewd business-man having managed t11e family affairs for quite some time and if such a huge amount was concealed from him by his elder brother he would have undoubtely raised objection at any time before the suit. This conduct of defendant No. 5 cannot, however, put the plaintiffs out of .court. He had decided to abide by the advice of his elder brother and if he thought that his elder brother did not wa,1t to divide the amount of Rs. 65 ,000 /- he kept quiet which is quite in consonance with the
