MAHARAJA RAJA SAHIB MAHARBAN DOSTAN SRI RAJU MAHARAJA SREE ROW SIR VENKATASWATHA CHALAPATHY RANGA ROW BAHADUR, K C I E MAHARAJA OF BOBBILI Vs. WSVENKATARAMANJULU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by an auction-purchaser of an undivided share belonging to a co- parcener against the decree of the District Judge of Chingleput disallowing his claim for mesne profits in the suit filed by him for partition and delivery of the share purchased.

(2.) The appellant rests his case on two grounds. The first is that the members of the family of the co-parcener whose share he purchased were divided in status and that he is consequently entitled to mesne profits and secondly that in any event he is entitled as a tenant In common with the other co-parceners to mesne profits in respect of the share which he purchased

(3.) As regards the first contention there is no oral evidence on record. The appellant relies on Exhibits A and B as showing that the person whose share he purchased was divided in status from the other members of his family. Exhibit A is an affidavit filed by one of the members in a previous suit. The inference required to be drawn from Exhibit A is that the parties were divided in status but reading the affidavit as a whole it seems to us that the dispute was about the management of the properties. It does not appear that there was any decision in the suit in which Exhibit A was filed that the members were divided in status and we do not see how the allegation of one member in a previous suit could be taken to be conclusive in the matter. Exhibit B does not help the appellant as it specifically recites that the incumbents "are undivided members and that they are entitled to the shrotriem village" and we are therefore of opinion that it has not been shown that the appellant s predecessor in title was divided in. status from the other co-parceners.