JUDGMENT.-The legal representatives of the plaintiff K. Daniel Nadar, who failed in both the Court below are the appellants. Daniel Nadar filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 2 acres of land out of the suit propetty which is 13. 12 acres S. No 3020-A of Ponmanai village, Kalkulam taluk. The allegation the plaint was that one half of Survey N . 3020-A, the total extent where of is 26 acres and 30 cents belonged to one Dr. John Hilkiah, who bad been impleaded as the second plaintiff and legal representative of the first plaintiffin O.S. No. 293 of 1120 H.F. which was filed by the deceased first plaintiff Nakshatram Abaranam of C lacbal Paguthifor partition of a half share, impleading the plaintiff Daniel Nadar as the 10th defendant. The other half share belonged according to the first plaintiff Nakshatram Abaranam to defendants 1 and 2 - Anan than Pillai and Velayudhan Pillai respoctively and their maternal uncle Raman Pillai and they became divided as per Fxhibit A-1 dated 13th November,1097 M.F. Subsequently Raman Pillais 1 2 acres in S. N . 3020-A to the plaintiff - Daniel Nagar under Fxhibit A-2 dated the 5-11-1117 M.F. 16th June, 1947. Defendants 3 to 14 are enjoying the property - under defendants 1 and 2. There was a preliminary decree for partition of Dr. John Hilkiah’s l/4th share in the property. But on appeal, a preliminary decree for partition of a half share was passed in his favour by the appellate Court as per the judgment Exhibit A-5. In the final decree proceedings defendants 3 to 5 were impleaded without notice to the plaintiff Daniel Nadar, whose legal representatives are the appellants herein, and their shares were allotted on the basis of the sale deeds executed in their favour by the 2nd defendant, denying the share of Raman Pillai, who had been examined as D.W. 4 in the said suit O.S. No. 293 of 1120 M.E. The deceased plaintiff filed I.A. No. 952(a) of 1958 for partition of his share of 2 acres in accordance with the direction in the preliminary decree passed as per the judgment Exhibit A-3 in O.S. No. 293 of 1120 M.E. But it was dismissed on 8tb October, 1958 with a direction that he could file a separate suit for partition. The appellants’ right to 2 acres of land as per the sale deed has to be declared and their shares partitioned.

2. The defence of defendants 1 and 11 to 14 was that S. No. 3020-A belonged to the tarwad of defendants 1 and 2 and was not enjoyed by Dr. John Hilkiah. Raman Pillai and defendants 1 and 2 were members of an undivided sub-tarwad in 1097 and 1117 M.F. The alleged sale by Raman Piilai, an undivided member of the tar wad, in favour of the plaintiff Daniel Nadar is not valid and binding on defendants 1 and 2 and he has not acquired any right to any portion of the property. There was no consideration for the sale or necessity for the tarwad to sell the property. Daniel Nadar did not get possession of the property in pursuance of the sale in his favour. Defendants 1 and 11 to 14 are entitled to 13 acres and 15 cents in the suit survey number. The first defendant has sold 3 acres out of it to strangers from whom defendants 6 and 7 have purchased it and are in possession. Defendants 1 and 11 to 14 have othied another two acres of land to defendants 8 to 10 under Exhibit B-16 dated 5th February, 1952 and those three defendants are in possession of the same. Raman Pillai had no heritable or alienable share in the suit property and the appellants who claim under a sale deed executed by him are not entitled to any interest in the property.

3. The defence of the second defendant was that the entire survey number 3020-A belonged to the tarwad of defendants 1 and 2. But Dr. John Kilkiah had managed to get a final decree for partition of a half share in. O.S. No. 293 of 1120 M.E. Raman Pillai and defendants 1 and 2 did not get divided in 1097 M.E., but continued to be members of a sub-tarwad, and the sale by Raman Pillai is void ab initio as opposed to Nair Regulation. There

Click Here to Read the rest of this document