JAYARAMA PILLAI Vs. PARVATHI AMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal arising from the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in A.S. No. 131 of 1952 practically confirming the order and decree of the learned District Munsif of Villupuram in O.P. No. 65 of 1950.

(2.) THE facts are: Thaiyanayagi Ammal, the wife of the first respondent and the mother of respondents 2 and 3, took two mortgages from the father of the petitioners, Deivanayaga Reddiar. The first mortgage, a usufructuary one, was on 3rd November, 1921, for Rs. 1,500 and the second mortgage, also a usufructuary one, was on 28th September, 1923, for Rs. 2,700 in discharge of the prior mortgage and possession continued to be with the mortgagee. This Thaiyanayagi Ammal as well as Deivanayaga Reddiar have died. The petitioners are the five daughters of that Deivanayaga Reddiar. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners on the foot that they are agriculturists within the meaning of Madras Act IV of 1938, and concerning which there is no dispute, applied for scaling down. The contention of the respondents was that by reason of the fact that Thaiyanayagi Ammal was a woman and the bulk of her properties were situated in Pondicherry and which ought not to be taken into account and therefore made her an exempted person under Clause (h) of Section 4 of the said Act, the petition for scaling down should be rejected.

(3.) CLAUSE (h) of Section 4 is plain and unambiguous. Section 4 begins by stating