RAJAGOPALAN NAIR Vs. REKKUNNI NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition and for rendition of accounts by the 1st defendant who was alleged to be in management of the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff claimed 1/10th share in A Schedule properties and 1/15th share in B schedule items. The properties belonged to the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. They were acquired by one Penchu Nair and Kunchu Nair under Exts. D 1 and D 2, on 20-5-1910. These properties were partitioned in the year 1914 under Ext. P l and the parties to the partition deed were Penchu Nair, Kunchu Nair, the father of the plaintiff, and one Rekkunni Nair. These three persons are the sons of three sisters, Chonamma, Meenakshi Amma and Cheru Amma respectively. Under the partition, A schedule properties were allotted jointly to Kunchu Nair and Rekkunni Nair, and B schedule properties were kept in common. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 are the children and the grant children of Kunchu Nair. Defendants 7 and 11 are the children of the deceased sister of Penchu Nair. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a partition of the plaint schedule properties on the allegations that Kunchu Nair was entitled to half of the plaint A schedule properties and 13rd of the plaint B schedule properties and that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 were entitled to these properties as they were the self acquisitions of Kunchu Nair. He also prayed for rendition of accounts by the 1st defendant as regards certain amounts which came into his hands during the course of his management of these properties. Defendants 2 and 4 supported the plaintiff. The other contesting defendants contended that the plaintiff's claim to the plaint schedule properties cannot be sustained as the properties did not belong to Kunchu Nair, but to the thavazhi of Kunchu Nair and as such the plaintiff could not claim any share in the plaint schedule property.

(2.) The Trial Court found that the property belonged to the tavazhi of Kunchu Nair and dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred against that decree failed. Therefore, the second appeal has been filed challenging the decisions of the lower courts.

(3.) It is admitted that these properties have been acquired under Exts. D 1 & D 12. Penchu Nair & Kunchu Nair are described as karanavans of their respective tavazhies in Exts. D 1 and D 2. It may not be possible j to infer from this alone that the acquisitions were made for and on behalf of their respective tavazhies. But, apart from that, there are the significant recitals in the documents to the effect that the properties conveyed under them were to be enjoyed by the tavazhies. It was contended that those i recitals by themselves would not indicate that the executes under those documents agreed that the acquisitions were for and on behalf of the tavazhies. Reliance was placed on the decision of the House of Lords in 1937 All England Reports Vol. 4 page 396 for the proposition that a recital in a document need not necessarily be binding on all the parties to the document. The principle laid down in that case can be stated in the language of Patteson, J, in his judgment in Stronghill v. Buck:-