KATANKANDI KONA ALIAS KOYAMOTTI Vs. THAMBURAN KANDI SIVASANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We cannot accept the evidence as establishing the position for which the plaintiff contends; the Chirutha, the purchaser named in Exhibit-III, had no interest in the paramba purchased. Exhibit--K is most untrustworthy as a statement of title, because it was made in a suit in which it was the object of the present 2nd defendant to defeat the claims of a mortgagee from her mother, and to do this she alleged, if indeed she did allege, that her mother had no interest. The document is not entirely clear; we are not sure that the 2nd defendant did not intend to admit her mother's interest, and merely to allege that she had no right to alienate without her (the 2nd defendants) consent.

(2.) The witness K. Kannan, no doubt, says that the purchase of the paramba was made at his mother's suggestion for the 1 and 2nd defendants, but there is no explanation why if Kamaran intended his wife to have no interest he made the purchase in her name; it is quite possible that he did not, when it came to the point, accept the suggestion of Kannan's mother in its entirety.

(3.) Exhibit-II shows clearly the position taken up by the 2nd defendant in 1900. She then alleged that the gift was to the whole family, i.e., to herself, her mother and all the children of both, including, therefore, the 1 defendant though he is not mentioned by name.