GURUSAMI PANDIYAN Vs. SENDATTI KALAI PANDIA CHINNATHAMBIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This in an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in two suits which were tried together. In the first suit the plaintiff sued to recover the impartible estate of Sivagiri from the mother of the late zemindar who died unmarried in 1914, while in (he second suit the plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was entitled to succeed as nearest reversioner on the death of the late zemindar s mother. She died in 1916 while the suit was pending, and he was then brought on as the second defendant in the first suit and will be so referred to. The tisimrar or grantee of the permanent sunnad died in 1819 and was succeeded by his daughter Virammal who died in 1835. She left two sons Periadorai, who succeeded her and was the grandfather of the late zemindar, and Chinnadorai, who had two sons, the elder commonly known as Periaswami who was the father of the plaintiff, and the younger, commonly known as Chinnaswamy who was the father of the 2nd defendant. Chinnaswamy and his family resided at Veppangulam a village some twenty miles distant from Sivagiri in a house which appears to have belonged to his father. In 1843 he received a later grant of lands and money in lieu of maintenance, and he and his family were allowed to occupy certain pannai or home farm lands belonging to the zemindari at a favourable rent, and also received occasional allowances for the performance of the usual ceremonies in connection with births, deaths and marriages.

(2.) The late zemindar s mother, as 1st defendant in the main suit, did not rely solely on her title as preferential heir to the plaintiff, but also questioned his legitimacy and put him to the proof that his father Periaswami was senior to the 2nd defendant s father Chinnaswami, and also that the plaintiff himself was younger than the 2nd defendant. [The learned Chief Justice then discusses the evidence as to plaintiff s legitimacy and concludes]

(3.) The appellant s case as to this part of the case is really hopeless, and the main issue of fact argued before us was as to whether the plaintiff had proved that he was older than the second defendant as the Subordinate Judge has found. If the finding be correct the plaintiff is entitled to succeed as the preferential heir in any view as to the line of successsion to the zemindari. The plaintiff s case is that he was born before the death of his grandfather Chinnadorai which admittedly took place between the months of October and December, 1871, while the 2nd defendant s case is that the plaintiff was not born until December, 1875. [The learned Chief Justice after discussing the evidence with regard to age concludes thus]