SRIMANTH SETHURAMA SAHIB POWAR, THROUGH HIS AUTHORISED AGENT G B BAKSHI OF TANJORE Vs. SRIMANTHA CHOTTA RAJA SAHIB MOHITOY ALIAS CHIMMA SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The suit was brought for partition of a few of the properties left undivided between the plaintiff and the defendant, though a decree for partition of the plaint properties and several other properties had been passed so long ago as on 7th March 1896 (see decree Exhibit C), and for partition of one property (item No. 4) not included in the former suit. The plaintiff and the defendant were two of the parties to the suit (Original Suit No. 36 of 1895) in which that decree (Exhibit C) was passed, they having been plaintiff "and second defendant" respectively in that suit. The third defendant in that suit was the Secretary of State for India represented by the Collector of Tanjore, who was in possession of some of the movables belonging to Sakharam Sahib (connected with the Tanjore Royal Family) whose properties were in dispute in that suit.

(2.) The lower Court has dismissed the suit as regards items Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint A Schedule and has passed a preliminary decree, for partition of the other items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in Schedule A. This appeal by the defendantought, therefore, to have been confined to those items, but I find it includes (probably by mistake) all the nine items.

(3.) Forty-two grounds have been mentioned in the appeal memorandum, but many of the grounds are either too vague to require notice or are mere repetitions in other words of other grounds and most of them were not argued separately. I shall mention only the contentions pressed before us by Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar for the appellant and give my conclusions shortly upon each of them after setting out a few more necessary facts.