LAWS(PVC)-1912-12-102

KESAVASAMI AIYAR Vs. ALRARRMNARAYANA CHETTY

Decided On December 01, 1912
KESAVASAMI AIYAR Appellant
V/S
ALRARRMNARAYANA CHETTY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kesava Aiyar was the cowledar of the plaint village under the Rajah of Ramnad. He bequeathed one-eighth of his interest in the village to the plaintiffs and seven-eighths to his son, Narasimier. The plaintiffs, however, never got possession of his shares of the property. Narasimier, who remained in possession, was treated by the landlord as sole cowledar, paid the Poruppu, payable on the whole land, took receipts in his sole name, issued pattahs to the cultivating tenants, and received muchilikas from them. He paid the plaintiff his share of the income. The plaintiff did not pay the landlord the rent payable by him on his share. It is also found that the Zamindar or his representatives in title had no knowledge of the plaintiff s interest in the land. Nara-simmier made default in payment of rent. Proceedings were taken against him under Act VIII of 1865 and the land was sold.

(2.) The plaintiff now sues for a declaration that the wale does not affect his interest in the land and seeks for a partition and delivery of his share. His claim was disallowed by both the lower Courts.

(3.) The interests of the original cowledar having vested in the plaintiff and Narasimmier, the plaintiff s interest in the property cannot pass by a sale unless he was made a party to the proceedings which led up to the sale by notice having been served upon him. It has been held, by this Court that where a tenant has assigned his interest, the assignee is not bound by proceedings taken against the original tenant, even if the assignee failed to give notice of his purchase and the Zemindar had no knowledge of the same. The case of a devolution of interest is perhaps stronger, as the landlord in such a case has to find out the heir or representative. We are, therefore, of opinion that the sale is not binding on the plaintiffs.