MUTHUSWAMI GOUNDAN Vs. PALANI GOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are from judgments in connected suits. The facts necessary for the disposal of those appeals are as follows: One Palani Goundan was the father of one Kavundai Goundan who is the -5 defendant in O.S. Nos. 559 of 1921. His sons are defendants Nos. 6 to 8. Fifth defendant sold certain family property under Ex. B to defendants Nos. 1-4, who, in their turn, sold it to the plaintiff under Ex. C. The sale covered 8 items. Plaintiff claimed that they were all the 5 defendant's properties at the time of the sale by him to defendants Nos. 1-4, that the 5 defendant had separated from his family and had got items Nos. 1-4 and 8 for his share and that as regards Nos. 5,6 and 7 they were his self-acquisition. The contest in the suits ranged round the question whether Palani Goundan was still joint with the 5th defendant and his sons, and whether items Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were the self-acquisitions of the5 defendant. The lower Appellate Court has decided that there was no partition between Palani Goundan and his sons and that items Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are part of the joint family property. These findings must be accepted in second appeal.

(2.) The connected suit was by Palani Goundan to declare that the sales of joint family property under Exs. B and C did not bind him, and the judgment in that suit followed the judgment in the other.

(3.) In this Court the appellant in both appeals is the same, namely, the purchase under Ex. C. In both suits Koundai Goundan the vendor under Ex. B remained ex parte. The contention here is that the lower Appellate Court ought not to have dismissed the appellant's claim in toto but should have held that the transfer of Koundai Goundan's own share in the joint family property to him was valid, it not having been contested by Koundai Goundan himself, that the other members of the joint family have no right to question that transfer, and that the lower Appellate Court ought, therefore, to have given the plaintiff a decree that the transfer of that share to him was valid and binding on the rest of the joint family.