VADIVALAM PILLAY Vs. NATASAM PILLAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of Hindu law of some importance has been raised for decision in this second appeal. The necessary facts may. be very briefly stated. One Manikam and Chinnappa were two Hindu brothers. They were living separate for a considerable time. The plaintiff is the son of Manikam. He sues to recover one-half of certain lands which were sold by Chinnappa in 1898. Evidently, the lands in question, as well as other property belonging to the brothers, were managed by Chinnappa. The plaintiff s case was that he and Chinnappa were undivided members and that the sale made by Chinnappa was not binding on him. He, therefore, claimed to recover one-half of the properties sold, treating the sale of the other half as valid, as Chinnappa was entitled to alienate his own share for consideration.

(2.) Several questions of fact were raised by the defendant which it is unnecessary to refer to for the purpose of this judgment. The lower Courts found that family was undivided. The Appellate Court also overruled the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff s right to a share of the family properties was extinguished by the statute of limitations; no good reason is shown for interfering in the second appeal with the finding on this latter question.

(3.) Mr. Seshagiri Iyer argued that the plaintiff was estopped by his conduct from disputing the alienation made by Chinnappa but the finding of the Munsif on the question of estoppel was against him and no facts have been brought to our notice which would show that the plaintiff was estopped. The second Appellate Court held that out of Bs. 500, the consideration of the sale-deed, Exhibit VIII, executed by Chinnappa, Rs. 250 was borrowed by him for purposes binding on the family consisting of himself and his nephew the plaintiff but that the remaining Rs. 250 was not binding on the plaintiff. On these facts, he had to decide what decree the plaintiff was entitled to. He came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the half share claimed by him without making any payments to the defendant. In doing so, he considered himself supported by the authority of the decision in Marappa Gaundan v. Rangasawmi Gaundan 23 M. 89.