Judgement

APPEAL from a decree of the High Court (March 3, 1880), which varied a decree of the District Court of Tinnevelly (Nov. 29, 1876).

The facts of the case were not in dispute, and they, together with the proceedings in this and a former suit, are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.

The questions raised in the appeal related to the nature of the interest which the late zemindar of Sivagiri (the Respondents father) possessed in the zemindary which he had inherited under Mitakshara law from his maternal grandfather; and to the extent of the Respondents liability for his fathers debts.

Leith, Q.C., and Mayne, for the Appellant, contended that the zemindary was not the ancestral property of his father in the sense of Hindu law (Mitakshara) so as to vest in the Respondent any

Law. Rep. 9 Ind. App. 128 ( 1881- 1882) Muttayan C hettiar V. Sangili Vira Pandia Chinnatambiar

17

interest in the property during his fathers lifetime. It descended to the Respondents father as heir to his maternal grandfather. The son accordingly had not the same interest in it; nor was the father under the same restriction as to alienation as he would have been had the estate descended to him from