CHINNATHAYI ALIAS VEERALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. VKULASEKHARAPANDIYA NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three of these seven appeals, namely, Nos. 413, 230 and 301 of 1943, raise questions with regard to the succession to the zamindari of Bodi-naickanoor in the Madura District, which from ancient times has always been regarded as impartible and was declared so to be by the Madras Impartible Estates. Act, 1904. Two of the appeals Nos. 230 and 302 of 1943, call for a decision on the question whether the village of Boothipuram, which admittedly formed part of the estate before 8 May, 1890, became the private property of a member of the joint family. Three of the appeals, Nos. 302, 355 and 356 of 1943, relate to the present title to certain pannai (home-farm) lands and buildings thereon which had also belonged to the estate. There were four suits, which were tried together by the District Judge of Madura, who gave his findings in two judgments, one dated 22nd February, 1943 and the other dated 7th April, 1943. The appeals can conveniently be dealt with in one judgment as some of the facts are common to all of them. The following pedigree will be helpful in appreciating the facts:

(2.) It will be noticed that some of the persons named in the pedigree are described as parties. These descriptions are taken from O.S. No. 6 of 1941, which has been regarded as the main suit. We shall as far as possible adhere to these descriptions in the judgment.

(3.) In 1862, when the narrative opens the joint family to which this impartible estate belonged had five branches. Succession to the estate had always been governed by the rule of lineal primogeniture, subject to a family custom according to which a younger son by a senior wife was preferred to an elder son by a junior wife. The learned District Judge found this custom to be proved and the judgment in this respect has been accepted by all parties. By reason of the custom the estate devolved on T.B. Kamaraja Pandia Naicker (hereinafter referred to as Kamaraja No. I), the son by the senior wife, on the death of his father the representative of the first branch. Kamaraja No. I died on the 15 December, 1888. The next in succession was his brother Vadamalai, who was a son by the junior wife. Vadamalai was regarded as being mentally deficient, although in O.S. No. 31 of 1902, to which further references will be made later, it was held that he was not debarred from succession by reason of mental affliction. The representatives of all the five branches regarded him as being debarred from succession for this reason and he was passed over without any protest. In the present litigation all the parties have regarded him as being unfitted for the gadi and the appeals have proceeded on this basis. He died in 1901 without male issue. There were no other male descendants of the first branch and consequently that line of succession became extinct.