LAKSHMI ANNEE Vs. PRANAL ANNEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMASWAMI Mudali, of Kappur, in the Presidency of Madras, a Hindu, subject to the Mitakshara law, died in the year 1872, leaving landed estates, part of which are the subject of the present litigation. He left no male descendant, but was survived by a widow, a daughter, and also by his mother. His widow, his daughter, and hie mother successively took a female estate in the lands which he left; and his mother, who was the last taker, died in December, 1883. On her death the lands were taken possession of on behalf of the present appellant, then an infant, who is the granddaughter of the deceased, being the only child of his daughter.

(2.) ON January 28, 1885, a suit was raised in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonum against the appellant, then a child eight years of age, as represented by her testamentary guardians, and also against four other defendants, at the instance of Varadaraja Mudali, now deceased, and the present respondents, Srinivasa Mudali and Manikka Mudali, who alleged that they were the reversionary heirs of Ramaswami. In their plaint the reversionary heirs concluded for decree against the present appellant and her guardians for possession of certain lands which are not the subject of the present controversy; but it expressly excluded certain other lands, which had admittedly been the property of the deceased Ramaswami, and had also been taken possession of on behalf of the appellant as part of the deceased's succession. These lands were purposely excluded from the plaint, because the plaintiffs, the reversionary heirs, had, on December 30, 1884, conveyed their interest in them to one Vijayaraghava Paha Chariar for the sum of Es,4000, in order to provide themselves with funds to meet the expenses of litigation.

(3.) BY the deed last mentioned, the agreement of union, between the plaintiffs on the one hand, who now are or are represented by the present respondents, and the appellant, who was then, being still a minor, represented by her husband and guardian, Venkatarunga Mudaliar, on the other hand, it was agreed that the second contracting parties should have and retain one-half share of the lands which were claimed from the appellant and her guardians in the suit of 1885, and should also have or retain one-half share of the lands which had been excluded from that suit, and had been conveyed to Vijayaraghava Patra Chariar. The deed of agreement was not produced in the suit of 1885, and was not submitted to the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonum, before whom that litigation depended. It was not registered in accordance with the provisions of Act III. of 1877, although it professes to deal with the title to immovable property, which is admittedly beyond the value of one hundred rupees.