VANNARATH PARVATHI AMMA Vs. VANNARATH LAKSHMI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 4 to 14 are the appellants in this second appeal. Plaintiffs and the defendants are members of an undivided tavazhi tarwad and the suit is for partition of the B and C schedule properties. The appellants claim reservation of their rights under Exhibits B -10 which is an assignment of Exhibit B -2 kanakuzhikanom deed in respect of Item l and some trees in Item 2. There is no controversy regarding the validity of Ext. B -2 kanakuzhikanom deed. That was executed by a prior karanayan of the tavazhi in favour of a junior member by name Kamaran and a stranger by name Kannan. Kamaran was unmarried and died - On his death his half right devolved on the tavazhi, Kannan's right was transferred under Ext. B -6 to one Cheevvayi and the latter assigned under Ext. B -7 her rights to defendants 1 and 2. They subsequently transferred their rights to the 4th defendant who is the first appellant in this second appeal - The controversy relates to the character of Ext. B -7 assignment. The appellants contend that the acquisition was with the separate funds of defendants 1 and 2 whereas theother members of the tavazhi claimed it to be an assignment in the name of the present karanayan and for and on behalf of the tarwad. The trial Court upheld the appellants' contention. But the first appellate Court came to a different conclusion and hence this second appeal.

(2.) B schedule consists of two items. These and two other items were obtained under an earlier partition by two tavazhies jointly. These tavazhies were enjoying portions of the properties separately. While so, under Ext B -l of 1910 the two tavazhies recognised their separate possession and also recognised the improvements effected by each. Though the improvements alone were recognised as belonging to the respective tavazhies separately, the arrangement under Exhibit B -l was by the subsequent transactions treated for all effects as a partition between the two tavazhies. The tavazhy of the parties to this suit was always finding it difficult to make both ends meet. This tavazhy had to incur debts. It was to discharge game of the debts that Ext. B -2 kanakuzhikanom was executed, and an amount of Rs. 500/ - borrowed. The income of the property included in Exhibit B -2 was not sufficient to cover the in -terest on the amount borrowed. So there was a separate undertaking in Ext. B -2 to pay the interest on Rs. 100/ - out of Rs. 500/ - borrowed.

(3.) ANOTHER point pressed before me relates to the reservation of Ext'B -8 right claimed by the 4th defendant. That lease has been found to be invalid rightly; and since it is only of the year 1961, protection under Section 7 -B of Act 1 of 1964 is not also available to the 4th defendant. She cannot be said to be holding the property bona fide believing herself to be a tenant. Therefore. I agree with the Courts below in holding that the 4th defendant is not entitled to get any reservation for Ext, B -8 lease.