NATESA AIYAR ALIAS SESHAPPA AIYAR Vs. RATHAI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Subordinate Judge in paragraph 10 of his judgment finds that the alienation was made in pursuance of a previous promise made by the 2nd defendant's father, not in pursuance of the contract made by the 2nd defendant with the 1 defendant. There does not appear to be any evidence to support that finding. The only evidence to which the Subordinate Judge refers is a statement of a witness Sambasiva Aiyar to the effect that the 2nd defendant's father at the time of his death said that some land should be given to the 1 defendant and a recital in Exhibit I which supports this statement. That is not evidence that the 2nd defendant's father requested the 1 defendant to remain in his son's service.

(2.) It was contended for the respondent, that the alienation can be supported as made by the 2nd defendant in consideration of services rendered at his request. The Subordinate Judge does not seem anywhere to have recorded any distinct finding that, that is the case though he says that the 2nd defendant admitted that the 1 defendant attended to the family affairs at his bidding. There is thus no finding that there was as a fact consideration to support the alienation.

(3.) It is impossible to hold that the alienation is binding as having been made for family necessity or for family benefit.