ANGAMUTHU MUTHIRIAN Vs. SINNAPENNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions which are of some importance were raised in this appeal. The one is whether the word "sister" in Act 2 of 1929, includes a half-sister; and the other relates to the validity and binding nature of an arrangement embodied in a compromise decree in a litigation between the mother of a last male owner and the next presumptive reversioner concerning his estate. The relevant facts are not in dispute. One Muthukaruppa Muthiriyan died in 1921 possessed of property both moveable and immovable and leaving him surviving his two wives Chinnammal and Ammachi Ammal and a son Ganesa Muthiriyan by the said Chinnammal and two daughters, the plaintiffs in this suit, by Ammachi Ammal. Ganesa Muthiriyan died on 11th October 1924 unmarried and Ammachi Ammal died on 12 October 1924. Muthukaruppa Muthiriyan's property thus came into the sole possession of Chinnammal. The next presumptive reversioner to the estate of Ganesa Muthiriyan was his paternal uncle, that is his father's brother Neelamaga Muthiriyan, defendant 2 in this suit. On 10 March 1926 Neelamega Muthiriyan filed a suit, O.S. No. 85 of 1926 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Srirangam against Chinnammal and others for an injunction restraining Chinnammal and her brother from committing waste of the property in bar possession and for appointment of a Receiver in respect thereof. His claim was on the footing that Chinnammal inherited the said property as heir to her son Ganesa Muthiriyan and he was the presumptive reversionar to the estate. Chinnammal in her written statement denied that she took the property as her son 's heir. She sat up an independent title as the devisee under her husband's will. She alleged that all the property which her husband died possessad of was his self-acquired property, that shortly before his death he made an oral will to the effect that in case his son Ganasa Muthiriyan should die before attaining majority both his wives should enjoy his property for their lives and thereafter his daughters the plaintiffs herein should take the property absolutely and that she was in possession and management of the property, in pursuance of the said will. Thus the claim set up was a denial of any subsisting estate of Ganesa Muthiriyan and any outstanding reversion.

(2.) After the trial had begun, and evidence had been partly taken, common friends appear to have intervened and brought about a settlement of the matters in dispute and the terms of the settlement were reduced to writing in a razinamah dated 22 July, 1927 and a decree was obtained thereon. The result of the settlement was that the property then available and in the possession of the widow except) jewels was divided into two halves, one half to be enjoyed by Chinnammal for her life and thereafter by the plaintiffs absolutely and the other half by Neelamega Muthiriyan and his sons. The jewels in the possession of Chinnammal were declared to be her absolute property. The suit against the other defendants was withdrawn, each party bearing his respective costs. The above arrangement was given effect to and the parties entered into possession of their respective shares and have been in enjoyment thereof. Two years after this decree, the Hindu Law of Inheritance Amendment Act (Act 2 of 1929) was passed and came into force in February 1929 in and by which a sister would be entitled to succeed in preference to a paternal uncle and his descendants. Two years thereafter in January 1931 the present; suit was instituted by the plaintiffs alleging that by virtue of the said Act they became the presumptive presumptive reversioners to the estate of Ganesa Muthiriyan, that the said compromise that the not operate in any manner whatsoever as against their reversionary right (vide para. 11 of the plaint) and they therefore prayed for a declaration that the said decree could not operate as against them vide, relief (a) in the prayer of the plaint]. They imp leaded as parties to the trait in addition to Chinnammal the said Neelamega Muthiriyan and his four sons who are respectively defendants 2 to 6 in the suit. They pleaded that the plaintiff ware not heirs Under the Hindu Law all as administered in this presidency, that Act 2 of 1929 did not confer on them any right and that the arrangement embodied in the said decree was a bona fide family settlement binding on fells; reversioners to the estate of Ganasa Muthiriyan and in any event on the plaintiff a on whom benefits were conferred thereunder. The learned Subordinate Judge negatived all their pleas and gave a decree to the plaintiffs declaring that the said decree is not binding on them. It is against this decree that this appeal has been preferred by defendants 3 and 4, Defendant 2 died since the institution of the suit and his sons defendants 3 to 6 are on record as his representatives.

(3.) The questions which fall to be decided are (1)(a) whether the plaintiffs as half-sister of Ganesa Muthiriyan were his heirs before the Act came into force and (b) whether the word "sister" in the said Act includes a half-sister; (2) whether the compromise of the said decree in O.S. No. 85 of 1926 is a family settlement and if so, is it binding on the plaintiffs. There is no direct decision in this presidency recognizing a half-sister as an heir to the estate of a person dying intestate though she is assumed to be so in Kumaravelu V/s. Viranna Gouudan (1882) 5 Mad 29. and Lakshmanammal V/s. Tiruvengada (1882) 5 Mad 241. In fact the claims of a sister were not recognized in provinces where the Mitakahara law prevails except in Bombay on the ground that she was not mentioned as an heir in the Mitakahara. Her claim was however ultimately recognized in Madras on the ground that she would be a Bhinna Gothra Sapinda and therefore a heritable bhandra the list of bandhus mentioned in Mitakshara having been considered to be only illustrative and not exhaustive : Kutti Ammal V/s. Radhakrishna Aiyan (1876) 8 M.H.C.R. 88. Lakshmanammal V/s. Tiruvengada (1882) 5 Mad 241. and Balamma v. Pullaya (1895) 18 Mad 168. On the same principle, a half-sister would be a heritable bandhu though in the order of succession she would be postponed to a full-sister. The plaintiffs must therefore be held to be included in the list of hairs to the estate of Ganesa Muthmyan even before the said Act came into force.