ADIMOOLA PADAYACHI Vs. KASI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The question of law arising in this case relates to the legal effect of a partition made as between two reversioners during the lifetime of a Hindu widow and before the reversion had opened.

(2.) To appreciate the contention of the appellant's learned advocate it is necessary to advert briefly to the facts of the case: The following pedigree shows the relationship between the parties:

(3.) Annammai the widow of Ranga Padayachi was in possession of the plaint A schedule properties during her lifetime. She died in 1930. In 1916, when her husband's nephews Sadasiva and Adimoola were reversioners to the widow Annam-mai's estate a partition of the A schedule properties was effected between these two men, and ever since the suit properties continued to be enjoyed by Sadasiva till his death and after his death by his widow Annammai who is the second defendant and by his son Samiappa's widow Kasi Ammal who is the first defendant. It appears from the judgments of the Courts below that, although Annammai, the widow of Ranga Padayachi, was not a consenting party to the partition yet she had in effect abandoned these properties, having left the village where, the properties are situated and taken up her residence in another village. She did not care what happened to these properties, and what can be gathered from the judgments of the Courts below is that she did not object to her husband's nephews Sadasiva and Adimoola taking possession of these properties and dividing them during her lifetime.