Judgement

In this case the suit was brought by the Appellant in the Court of the Principal Sudder Ameen at

11 M.I.A. 75 ( 1866- 1867) Appovier Alias Seetaramier V. Rama Subba Aiyan 93

Tinnevelly. The object of the suit was to establish his claim, as a member of an undivided Hindoo family, to a moiety by right of inheritance of the family property, and to eject three of the Defendants (the present Respondents) from the three several divided shares which they held of such property, under a deed of partition made in the year 1834, to which deed the Appellant was a party.

The validity of the partition made in pursuance of this deed was the main question in the suit. The Appellant sought to invalidate it, principally on the ground that such deed of division being only partially acted on was, therefore, wholly void ; that certain adoptions, by which three of the parceners became members of the family when undivided, were contrary to Hindoo law ; that the Appellant was a minor at the date of that partition ; and in the event of those points being decided in favour of the Appellant, he supported his claim to a moiety of the property by relying on a partition alleged to have been made in the year 1806, by the then members of the family.

The Defendants to the plaint were fifty-nine in number, and the five Respondents were the first named five Defendants ; the rest of the Defendants were severally holders of mortgages, and other derivative and subordinate interests in the different snares taken by the parceners under the division made in 1834.

The facts were these —

The common ancestor of the Appellant, the third Respondents husband, and of the fourth and fifth Respondents, was one Sitaramien, who died, leaving six sons. These sons formed an undivided family, consisting of six branches, who, after the death of Sitaramien, held and enjoyed the family property in common.

In the year 1806, the family being then undivided and the first, second, and third sons of Sitaramien, the common ancestor, being dead, their three sons, together with the three surviving sons of Sitaramien, came to a division of the family property, upon which the Appellant relied as the foundation of his claim. This transaction was held by the several Courts of Sudder Ameen, the Zillah, and the Sudder Dewanny, to have been a mere temporary arrangement, and not intended to be permanent, and its purpose being served, a reunion of the family ensued, after which the parceners continued to hold the property as an undivided family until the year 1830.

On the 30th of September, 1830, a Kararnamah (agreement) was entered into by the then surviving members of the family, for a prospective division of the family villages at some future period, as might be agreed on, with joint cultivation and engagement thereof in the six equal shares in the meanwhile. Nothing, however, was done to carry out this intended division. At the date of this agreement, the Appellant was a minor, and a party to it by his Mother, as his guardian.

On the 22nd of March, 1834, a further deed of division was executed between the parties to the deed of 1830, which the Appellant, being then of age, executed. By this partition the property was divided into six equal shares, which were separately allotted to the Appellant, and the first, second, and third Respondents, and the fathers of the fourth and fifth Respondents.

On the 19th of November, 1855, the Appellant filed his plaint in the Court of the Principal Sudder Ameen of Tinnevelly, against the Respondents and others not parties to the appeal, stating the transac-tion of 1806, and alleging that in March, 1834, the Appellant and the second Respondents, Venkatarama Ay an, since deceased, were minors, and that during their alleged minorities Sitaramien, who had been adopted by the Appellants elder brother, was, while a minor of

11 M.I.A. 75 ( 1866- 1867) Appovier Alias Seetaramier V. Rama Subba Aiyan 94

only five years, adopted without authority, by that brother