PERIA PECHI AND ORS. Vs. SUBBIAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 3 are the Appellants. The Plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that he is a service holder of thoti service of Umaikulam once in four years by rotation for one year from July -August 1958, for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with the Plaintiff's doing his turn of the service by rotation and to enjoy the suit property for the year in which the service is done by him and for recovery of Rs. 100 being the damages from Defendants 1 to 4 for the year 1958.

(2.) The Defendants contested the suit on the ground that Defendants 1 and 2, the daughters of Singapuli are entitled to 1/8th share of the office. The third Defendant is the husband of the first Defendant and the fourth Defendant is the village munsif. According to the Plaintiff, the office of the thoti which is in dispute belonged to eight persons who are named in the 1933 register, exhibit A -l. Ayyanar is the grandfather of the Plaintiff. Ayyanar had a brother Sankaralingam. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Sankaralingam had four sons and Sankaralingam and the four sons relinquished their interest in favour of Ayyanar and the Plaintiff who is the grand son of Ayyanar became entitled to 1/4th right in the thoti service inam. On the other hand, the contention of the Defendants is that Sankaralingam did not convey his rights to Ayyanar; but his rights devolved on Singapuli whose daughters are Defendants 1 and 2. Various other contentions were raised in the Courts below. It is unnecessary to deal with all of them.

(3.) The two contentions raised in this appeal are: