V LAKSHMAMMA Vs. VRATNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relationship between the persons concerned is given in the genealogical tree attached to the plaint and is not disputed. There is no reason for doubting the correctness of the learned judge s conclusions that the suit house was the separate acquisition of the deceased Ramamma and the 1st defendant and that the suit land was the separate acquisition of the former. It is argued with reference to Sudarsana Maistri v. Narasimhula Maistri (1901) I.L.R. 25 M. 149 at p. 155. that those two members of the family, one of dancing girls, comprised all the members of a sub-branch and could hold property jointly, as a distinct corporate unit within the larger corporate unit. There is no foundation for that argument, since there is no reason for regarding these two members as a sub-branch to the exclusion of the 1st plaintiff, their sister. The learned judge was, therefore, right in holding that the house was the common property of Ramamma and the 1st defendant and that the former s half share in it and the suit land passed to her mother, Seethamma, by inheritance on her death.

(2.) The learned judge s decision as to the suit jewels follows that regarding the house. The first plaintiff claimed both on the same basis. The 1st defendant who was alone concerned with the former no doubt claimed some of them as her separate acquisition in her written statement. But there was no distinct issue regarding them. The learned judge refers in his judgment to her case as being that they were acquired jointly. It is alleged and it is to be presumed in these circumstances that this was the case actually put forward at the trial. That it was so, is consistent with the 1st defendant s failure to give evidence and with the evidence of the defendant s 1st witness who alone was examined by her on the point. The claims to the jewels and the house were therefore dealt with rightly on the same footing.

(3.) These conclusions of the learned judge did not correspond either with the plaintiff s case, that the house, land and jewels were the joint property of the whole family or with the 1st defendant s that the two first were the joint property of Ramamma and herself and that some of the jewels were her own separate acquisitions. The argument to be dealt with next arises from these conclusions and therefore has been attempted first in this court. In plaint paragraphs 7 and 8 there is a reference to a will executed by Seethamma, mother of the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant whereby she bequeathed all property to which she was entitled, to the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs and nominated them executrixes. The plaintiffs submitted that Seethamma had no power to deal with the property by will, since (in accordance with their case) it belonged to the joint family; and the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs therefore did not claim under the will. The 1st defendant has however argued here that this reference to a will must have effect that the property must be taken to have vested in accordance with its terms in the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs and that in the absence of a conveyance by them to the 1st plaintiff, the latter has no title, on which she can sue in ejectment, as she in effect is doing.