The main legal principle established in the judgment is that a transfer of property, even if made by a person without title, can be validated if the transferee subsequently acquires an interest in the property sufficient to satisfy the transfer, and the transfer was for consideration.

1. The suit properties belonged to two brothers of a Hindu family, Ayya Pattamali and Parameswaran Pattamali. Plaintiffs 1 to 7 and the 2nd defendant are the descendants of Ayya Pattamali, and defendants 3 to 5 of the latter. Ayya Pattamali had four sons Subramonian, Krishnan, Chamu and Raman. Subramonian Pattamali had a son by name Nilacantan in whose favour the former, as the kartha of the family, in the year 1041 M.E. granted two kanoms regarding the suit properties. Nilacantan Pattamali died in Makaram, 1058, leaving behind him his widow Meenakshi Ammal and a daughter Ananthalakshmi Ammal. Disputes arose between the widow and the nephews of Nilacantan Pattamali as to the right of succession to his estate, which ultimately ended in a family settlement evidenced by Ext. F dated Makaram 6,1059 under which Meenakshi Ammal surrendered all the properties of her late husband to his nephews, retaining with her only the suit properties to be enjoyed for her life and then to be taken absolutely by the nephews of her husband. Nothing was said in Ext. F about Ananthalakshmi Animal's right to succeed to her father's estate.

2. Parameswaran Pattamali, a member of the collateral branch, instituted a suit, O.S. No. 122 of 1085, for partition of the family. Meenakshi Ammal was the 55th defendant in that case, and the present suit properties items 18 and 19 of Schedule A appended to the plaint therein. Meenakshi Ammal claimed special rights in regard to the suit properties. Ext. G is the judgment and Ext. H the decree dated Thulam 2, 1089, in that suit. It was held therein that the aforesaid kanom right was the separate property of Nilacantan Pattamali and therefore the family was not entitled to possession of the suit properties without redeeming the same. Soon after that judgment, Meenakshi Ammal died, in 1090. In execution of the decree, defendants 36 to 39, 45 and 46 thereof obtained their shares; but the correctness of the allocation was disputed by the other members of the family. The parties who took their shares in execution gave up their rights thereto and all the members of the family entered into an agreement of partition in Ext. M dated Mithunam 17,1091, dividing the family properties, inclusive of the present suit properties, among themselves. Ananthalakshmi Ammal being a married woman was then not a member of that family and therefore was not made a party to Ext. M. The parties assumed that the kanom right of Nilacantan Pattamali lapsed to the branch of Ayya Pattamali on the death of Meenakshi Ammal as was provided in Ext. F. The jenm right was in the family itself. In Ext. M, the suit properties were therefore allotted in absolute rights to the branch of Parameswaran Pattamali. It was expressed therein that the suit properties were allotted to that branch to make up the deficiency in the share set apart to them, and that if in recovering the properties they were compelled to spend anything out of pocket the other members of the family would contribute thereto within fifteen days of the expenditure, and also that if any loss occurred to them in respect of the suit properties they would be indemnified in regard thereto. These special assurances in Ext. M would appear to indicate the consciousness of the parties of a defect in title in the suit properties. It is seen from Ext. K that Ananthalaksmi Ammal had filed O.S. No. 138 of 1091 for realisation of rent of the suit properties from the tenants, and contemporaneously some members of Ayya Pattamali's branch also filed a parallel suit claiming the same rent from the same tenants; and that after a joint trial, the former was decreed and the latter dismissed on Meenam 26,1091, (about three months before the execution of Ext. M) upholding Ananthalakshmi Ammal's right of succession to the suit properties as part of her father's estate untrammelled by the covenants in Ext: F to which she was no party.

3. On Vrischikam 9,1092, the members of Parameswaran Pattamali's branch e