O.R.M.M.S.P.S.V. MEYYAPPA CHETTIAR BY HIS POWER-OF-ATTORNEY AGENT V. EDAGANATHAN PILLAI Vs. MURUGAPPA AND SONS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in the following six suits : O.S. Nos. 14, 15, 16, 21, 22 and 24 of 1949. All the suits were for contribution, and, in the alternative, for partition, against defendants 1 to 17 in those suits, who are the successors -in -interest of one AL. AR. Arunachalam Chettiar. Some other defendants were also impleaded in all these suits, but as against them, no relief of contribution was claimed. The alternative claim for partition of the properties was given up in the lower Court and is not in issue now. The appellant in A.S. No. 150 of 1952 is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 14 of 1949. The appellant in A.S. No. 151 of 1952 is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 22 of 1949, and the appellants in A.S. No. 580 of 1955 which was originally filed in the District Court, West Tanjore, but subsequently transferred to this Court are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 21 of 1949.

(2.) ALL the suits related to a common claim by the different plaintiffs. The claim arose under the following circumstances. On the death of the last Rani of the Tanjore Raj, there were several claimants to the properties she left and the receiver in possession of the properties filed an inter -pleader suit which was ultimately numbered as O.S. No. 3 of 1919 on the file of the District Court, West Tanjore. By the preliminary decree in that suit passed on 1st July, 1918, defendants 1 and 2 therein, sons of the adopted son of the late Raja of Tanjore, were declared entitled to a one -fourth share, and defendants 4 to 11 in that litigation, known compendiously as Mangala Vilas defendants, were declared entitled to the remaining three -fourth share. During the pendency of the appeal against this preliminary decree in the High Court, the successful claimants in the lower Court were allowed to withdraw from Court monies collected and deposited by the receiver in possession.

(3.) THE main contesting defendants were the successors -in -interest of AL.AR. Arunachalam Chettiar, who could be compendiously called AL.AR. group. Various defences were put forward and a number of issues were raised to cover those defences by the lower Court. It may not be necessary for the disposal of these appeals to refer to all those defences.