MUTHUKUMARA STHAPATHIAR Vs. SIVANARAYANA PILLAI (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are set forth in the judgment under appeal and need not be re-stated in detail.

(2.) The defendant is alienee from a brother in a Hindu joint family and by virtue of the alienation defendant got into possession of a certain parcel of land. The rest of the joint family property was dissipated, and then plaintiff, the other brother, sued for partition of this parcel. The District Munsif dismissed his suit. The Subordinate Judge decreed him a moiety. A single Judge of this Court again dismissed the suit, and plaintiff appeals under the Letters Patent.

(3.) The parties agree that at the time of the alienation the defendant purchased the right to compel partition of the brother's share as it then stood. The plaintiff reads this as meaning that one-half was purchased, and from the property existing at the time of the partition suit defendant can take that half. The defendant would read into it something more, that he purchased not only the right to the fractional share, but the right to divide the family property as it stood on the date of alienation. Put mathematically, it may be said that plaintiff concedes that defendant has 1/2, and defendant claims x/2