1 This second appeal raises a question of some importance on the rights of a person governed by the Madras Marumakkathayam Act (XXII of 1933) to alienate his interest in the family properties. The facts are that there was a thavazhi consisting of six persons one of whom was Kunhimatha. She died leaving behind three sons, who are defendant 3 and plaintiffs 1 and 2 in this action and a daughter called Chirutha Kutti. The daughter died subsequently and so the three sons of Kunhimatha became entitled to her share in the family properties. On 26-11-1934 there was a partition among the members of the Thavazhi and at that partition the suit properties along with others fell to the share of Kunhimathas sons. The 3rd defendant is the eldest of them and is the manager of the family consisting of himself and the two minor plaintiffs. On 26-5-1942 he executed Ext. D2 a deed of melpattom in favour of the 2nd defendant and on 28-9-1942 another melpattom deed in his favour, Ext. D3. On 23 -12 1942 he sold under Ext. P2, the suit properties to the 1st defendant for a consideration of Rs. 1000/-.

2 The two plaintiffs instituted the suit out of which the present second appeal arises for recovery of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document