Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The question propounded is whether one member of a joint Hindu family consisting of several members can, irrespective of a partition of the family estate, give his own interest therein to one of the other coparceners. If the judgments of this Court in Peddayya v. Ramalingam I.L.R. (1888) Mad. 406 and Thangavelu Pillai v. Doraiswami Pillai AIR1915Mad113 are to be followed the answer must be in the affirmative, but it is said that the decision of the Privy Council in Venkatapathi Raju v. Venkatanarasimha Raju (1915) 2 L.W. 850 has made it clear that the observations in Peddayya v. Ramalingam I.L.R. (1888) Mad. 406 and Thangavelu Pillai v. Doraiswami Pillai AIR1915Mad113 cannotbe regarded as embodying a correct statement of the law.

2. In Peddayya v. Ramalingam I.L.R. (1888) Mad. 406, a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law consisted of four brothers. Disputes arose with regard to the right of succession to the movable property left by their father. The plaintiff claimed that the whole of this property belonged to him under an arrangement made by the father. In another partition suit two of his brothers by their plaint had relinquis