KARUPPAYEE AMMAL BY AGENT S N SANKARALINGA SWAMI NAICKER Vs. KATTARI NAGAYYA KAMARAJENDRA RAMASWAMI PANDIYA NAYAKKAR AVL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Visvanathaswami Naicker, an illegitimate son of the late Zamindar of Bodinaicka-noor by the 4 defendant, filed O.S. No. 31 of 1902 on the file of the Sub-Court of Madura West for a declaration that he is entitled to inherit the Zamin of Bodinaickanoor and for possession of the Zamindari with all its appurtenances and for other reliefs; though his suit was dismissed by the Sub-Court, Madura West, on appeal that decision was reversed and the suit remanded for fresh disposal. On 25 April, 1913, the Sub-Court, Madura (which was the name given to the old Sub-Court, Madura West) passed a decree in plaintiff's favour for partition of the separate properties of the late Zamindar and delivery of a one-third share thereof to him. On appeal, the High Court modified that decree and upheld the plaintiff's right to a half share in the said separate properties. The High Court also held that the plaintiff was not bound by the release deed--Ex. II--executed to the 1 defendant, the widow of the late Zamindar, by the 4th defendant, the mother of the plaintiff, for herself and on behalf of her son, the plaintiff, who was then a minor, nor debarred from claiming the said partition, but directed that the plaintiff should deliver possession to the 1 defendant of items 1 to 3 in Scheduel I of Ex. II, ,as they were held to be pannai lands and therefore impartible. The High Court also directed that "the plaintiff and the 1 defendant da each take a half of item 4 of Schedule I attached to Ex. II". The 1 defendant preferred an appeal to the Privy Council against the decision of the High Court, and on the 20 of December, 1922, the Privy Council dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the High Court. See Kantulammal V/s. Visvanaihaszvami Ndicker. (1922) L.R. 50 I.A. 32 : I.L.R. 46 M. 167 : 44 M.L.J. 465 (P.C.).

(2.) It must be mentioned that the 3 defendant is the daughter's son of the 1 defendant, the 4 defendant is the mother of the plaintiff, and the 6 defendant a gnati of the late Zamindar; the 2nd defendant--the daughter of the 1 defendant--and the 5 defendant-- elder brother of the 6 defendant--both died pending suit, and we are not concerned with them further.

(3.) Pending appeal to the Privy Council, the 1 defendant:--the widow of the late Zamindar-- died on 13 Tanuary, 1921, and the 3 defendant was brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased 1 defendant in the appeal to the Privy Council.