MURUGESAM PILLAI Vs. MINAKSHISUNDARA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 22nd August 1934, affirming the order of The Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dated 22 August, 1930. The orders were made in proceedings for the execution of a compromise decree dated 20 March 1919, on a petition presented by the legal representative of one, Muthukumara Pillai, deceased, which was dated 20 November 1928. The respondent does not appear, and Mr. Parikh, for the appellant, has said everything that can properly be said in support of the appeal, but their Lordships are unable to accept the view that the judgments of the Courts in India are incorrect.

(2.) The facts are comparatively simple. In or about the year 1912, one Narayana Pillai and his two minor sons, whose first names were Murugesam and Muthukumara, formed a Hindu joint family. On 26 February 1912, the father, Narayana, partitioned the joint family properties amongst the three co-parceners, namely, himself and his two infant sons, and he executed a deed of partition which was registered. Shortly afterwards, namely on 15 March 1912, he made a will disposing of his share of those properties and two days later he died. He left surviving him his two minor sons and two widows. The mother of the younger son, Muthukumara, was named Minakshisundara Ammal, and she is the respondent to the present appeal. On 27 April 1915, the minor and younger son, Muthukumara, by his next friend, his mother, just mentioned, instituted a suit in the Temporary Subordinate Judge's Court at Cuddalore, which was afterwards transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Cuddalore. There were six defendants to that suit, including the present appellant, the elder of the two sons. In the suit a declaration was sought that the partition deed and the will were invalid and not binding upon the plaintiff. The suit was contested, but was eventually compromised and the Subordinate Judge in his decree stated that it was in his opinion a fit and proper compromise and was for the benefit of the minor plaintiff. This decree, dated 20th March 1913, is the decree on the true construction of which the present question arises. The material terms are as follows:

(3.) That both the parties shall admit that the registered partition deed, dated 26 February 1912, and the registered deed of will, dated 15 March 1912, executed by the plaint- mentioned Narayana Pillai are genuine and valid; that they shall take unto themselves with all rights the properties set apart respectively for them in the said partition deed; that, from this day, the plaintiff's next friend shall execute and get registered a security bond for Rs. 6,000 In respect of some adequate immoveable properties and file it in Court to the satisfaction of the Court; that, thereupon, the plaintiff's next friend for and on behalf of the plaintiff shall take out execution proceedings through Court and obtain delivery of possession of the plaintiff's share of properties referred to in the suit and marked C in the said registered partition deed.