RANGANATHA NAIDU Vs. BALARAMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kancheepuram, in O.S. No. 10 of 1969 on the file of his Court. The suit was instituted for partition of the properties described in several schedules, and the learned Subordinate Judge granted "a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of l|6th share of the plaintiff in A, B Schedule Part III, items 2 and 3, D Schedule and I Schedule, and l|3rd share of the plaintiff in B Schedule Part II, Part III, item No. 1, C Schedule Parts I and II, G Schedule, Part VII and E Schedule Part VI, except items 3 to 7, 13, 14, 55, 57, 58, 73 and 74 purchased by 63rd defendant in Court auction". He dismissed also the rest of the claim of the plaintiff with a direction that the contesting defendants could recover their proportionate costs from the plaintiff.

(2.) THE properties in respect of which the plaintiffs claim was dismissed, were the properties that devolved on defendants 1 and 3 from their maternal grandfather. THEse items were sold by defendants 1 and 3 under Exhibits B-1, B-4, B-5 and B-8 to the contesting defendants as well as some of the defendants who have chosen to remain ex parte.

(3.) THERE are, on the other hand, observations in a later judgment of the Board in Atar Singh v. Thakar Singh1, which are pertinent here. It was stated in that judgment that unless the lands came by descent from a lineral male ancestor in the male line, they are not deemed ancestral in Hindu Law-. This case however, related to the property which came from male collaterals and not from maternal grandfather and it was governed -by the custom of the Punjab-, but it was not suggested that the custom differed from the Hindu law on the issue before their Lordships. The rule of Hindu law is well-settled that the property which a man inherits from any of his three immediate paternal ancestors, namely his father, father-s father and father-s father-s father is ancestral property as regards his male issue, and the sons acquire jointly with him an interest in it by birth. Such property is held by him in coparcenary with his male issue, and the doctrine of survivorship applies to it. But the question raised by this appeal is whether the son acquires by birth an interest jointly with his father in the estate, which the latter inherits from his maternal grandfather".