TINNEVELLY DISTRICT ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION THROUGH ITS PRESENT SUPERIOR REV FATHER H GRANGE S J Vs. MEDAI DALAVOI THIRUMALAIYAPPA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit in redemption. The Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in part; on appeal the District Judge decreed it in full, and the defendant prefers this second appeal.

(2.) Dalavoy Kumarasami Mudaly was a great land owner in Tinnevelly. In 1803 three branches which had descended from his three sons effected partition. The youngest branch represented by Tirumalayyappa Mudaliar and his younger brother Ramalinga Mudaliar had the property divided under a precept from the Madura Court in 1824. In 1850 these two brothers themselves separated and in O.S. No. 1 of 1851 Ramalingam sued for partition. The above facts are taken from the judgment in that a suit, Ex. G.

(3.) The present plaintiff is grandson of Tirumalayappa Mudaliar. In proof of the mortgage which he seeks to redeem, he produces a counterpart, Ex. A, executed in 1856 in favour of his grandfather, by one Khader Labbai. It seems from the recital in that document that the property was mortgaged by the middle branch to a Chetti and in 1850 the Chetti sub- mortgaged to the Lebbai for the one third share of the youngest branch, which is confirmed by the document of 1856. 3. It is not by any means clear why the youngest branch was acting as though it, and not the middle branch, owned the equity of redemption. In the litigation between Tirumalayappa and Ramalingam it comes out that they were claiming nine villages which the middle branch got in the partition, because they alone had undergone the trouble and expense of getting the partition effected; but the village in Ex. A Kailathikulam, is not mentioned in the decree Ex. G. After this lapse of time it can only be said that for some reason unknown, the youngest branch claimed this right which apparently was not disputed.