PANCHALI Vs. MANNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COURT of the Munsiff of Tellicherry the appellants in A. S. No. 134 of 1959 of the COURT of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. Their prayer, negatived by both the courts below, was for re-delivery of property under S. 5 (2) of Madras Act, no. 22 of 1956.

(2.) SUB-section (4) of S. 5 of the Act provides that nothing contained in that section shall affect the rights of any bona fide transferee from the landlord. The sole question for determination in this case is whether a member of a marumakkathayam tarwad obtaining property in family partition can be considered to be a transferee within the meaning of sub-section (4) of S. S. It is common ground that if he can be so considered, the decision of the courts below has to be affirmed and that if he cannot be so considered, the decision of the courts below has to be reversed and this petition allowed.

(3.) THE view that appeals to us is the view embodied in narasetti Vankitapala Narasimhala v. Someswara Rao AIR. 1948 Mad. 505. In that case Patanjali Sastri, J. , had occasion to deal with the true nature of a partition. THE learned judge said: "the true nature of a partition is that each co-owner gets a specific property in lieu of his rights in all the joint properties; that is to say, each co-sharer renounces his rights in the other common properties in consideration of his getting exclusive right to and possession of specific properties in which the other co-owners renounced their rights. It is thus a renunciation of mutual rights and does not involve any transfer by one co-sharer of his interest in the properties to the others. " (Head note)