ALAVANDAR GRAMANI Vs. DANAKOTI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of these two appeals from judgments of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput it will be sufficient to deal in extenso with A. S. No. 74 of 1922, as the decision in A. S. No. 45 of 1923 will follow from the findings reached in the former appeal.

(2.) The following table shows the family relationship of the person to whom this appeal relates:

(3.) Thanikachala was by profession--the family profession--a toddy contractor, and acquired a certain amount of property. He was thrice married, and by each wife had one son. In 1891 he made a will favouring his third wife (then alone surviving) and her son Raju at the expense of his two elder sons, Thyagaraja and Appadurai, who quarrelled with him and left home. Thanikachala died in 1896 or 1897, and on 17 February 1897 the three sons executed and registered a partition deed (Ex. A) which embraced not only Thanikachala's property but certain other items, which were the self-acquired property of the eldest son Thyagaraja. Besides the share which came to him under this deed, Thyagaraja subsequently acquired further property, and in 1910 made a will disposing of all that he at that date stood possessed of. At that time, although he was twice married he had only daughters. A son, the present plaintiff, was born in 1914. Thyagaraja himself died on 9 April 1917, leaving surviving his two daughters by his first wife (1 and 2nd defendants), his second wife (5 defendant) and two daughters (3 and 4 defendants) and a son (plaintiff) by that wife. It is said that doubts soon arose among these persons as to the operative effect of the will, so that professional advice was taken and the result was that a settlement ( Ex. II) was entered into on 5 December 1917, under which the entire property was distributed among the various members of the family.