MARIAN BEEVIAMMAL Vs. KADIR MEERA SAHIB TARAGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was brought in November 1911 by the plaintiff, a Muhammadan lady, to recover her share of the property left by her husband, Alii Mallik Mudalia Taraganar, who died on the 14th April 1889 leaving him surviving his sons by his predeceased wives, and the plaintiff and her son, the 5th defendant.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge held, that the plaintiff s deceased husband left all his property to his sons with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and that these latter had subsequently effected a partition among themselves of the property left by their father, also with the consent of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff s claim, if any, is now barred by limitation. The plaintiff appeals.

(3.) In 1878 the deceased Mudalia Taraganar effected a partition between himself and his four sons by his second wife then deceased. The property was divided into eight share?, each of the four sons of the second wife getting a share, and Mudalia Taraganar, his third wife, and his two sons by the third wife (the 3rd and 4th defendants) each getting a share. Mudalia Taraganar seems to have regained in his own hands the shares of the 3rd and 4th defendants and of his third wife. The property that was then divided into eight equal shares was valued at Rs. 64,405-10-6 (Exhibit II). In 1889 there was another partition. See Exhibit III. The T-rd wife had then died. The property which was then estimated to be of the value of Rs. 28,271- 15-5 was divided into four shares, the father, the deceased Mudalia Taraganar, his two sons by the third wife (the 3rd and 4th defendants), his son by the plaintiff (i.e., the 5th defendant) each getting a share of the value of Rs. 7,067-15-10. With respect to the share of Mudalia Taraganar, it was settled that after his death the mahar due to bis wife less the value of the jewels given to her should be paid out of his share and the remainder should be divided equally between his seven sons. No share was set apart for the plaintiff. On the 8th March that is 14 days after the partition-deed, Exhibit III, the father, Mudalia Taraganar, made his Will by which he appointed the 4th defendant as the guardian of the 5th defendant, who was then an infant. He was to submit his accounts to the other brothers and maintain the plaintiff out of the income of the 5th defendant s estate. It is the defendants case that four or five days after making this Will he gave all his sons 100 sovereigns each in the presence of the plaintiff, and that he directed a division of the cash kept by him into seven shares after his death and that the plaintiff assented to this. They also allege that some months after their father s death they divided the property left by him in accordance with his direction.s into seven shares with the plaintiff s knowledge and that the 5th defendant s share was delivered to the 4th defendant. As to the value of the property left by him which is divided into seven shares, there is no dispute. The total value of the properties, including the 600 sovereigns alleged to have been given by their deceased father to his sons, is stated to be Rs. 25,473 in the plaint, and this value is accepted by the defendants. It is the plaintiff s 1/8th share of this amount, Rs, 3,184- 2, together with interest that she seeks to recover in this suit.