PALANI AMMAL Vs. MUTHUVENKATACHALA MONIAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Palani Ammal, a Hindu lady, who is one of several defendants, from a decree, dated August 29, 1917, of the High Court at Madras, which affirmed a decree for partition of the Vadimitta estate, dated April 23, 1909, of the District Judge of Madura.

(2.) The estate in question, which appears to be a large Zamindari, was purchased by Peraiyar Muthukumaraswami, who died in 1831 He was a Hindu Sudra, who and his descendants were governed by the law of the Mitakshara. His descendants, unless they separated, constituted a Mitakshara joint family, the property of which was in law joint property unless the contrary was proved. For the sake of brevity he will hereafter be referred to as the propositus. The propositus had two wives; by the senior wife he had six sons, most of whom married and left male issue, by his junior wife he had one son, who left male issue. It is stated in the judgment of Sastri J., in this caste, and doubtless correctly, that " the property admittedly continued to be in the possession and enjoyment of the descendants of the first son of the propositus." As the family was not an ancient family, the property, which was acquired in quite modern times, was in the possession of the senior son and his descendants as managers of the joint family and not as the senior male member of a joint family.

(3.) There are two questions in this suit and in this appeal upon which there are concurrent findings of the District Judge and the High Court. Those questions are whether the principal parties to the suit are bound by an award which was made by some arbitrators, who have been made defendants to the suit, and if they are not bound by the award, then the question arises whether the joint family which descended from the propositus ever separated.