Ramakrishanan, J. - (1.) This appeal, under the letters patent, is filed by the Plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 98 of 1122 M.E. on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court of Nagercoil, against the decision of JAGADISAN J., in Appeal No. 198 of 1958. It is not necessary to set out the facts at any great length, for the purpose of this appeal, because the points in controversy have now become limited. The suit was filed by one Thavazhi of a Tarwad in Kanyakumari district governed by the Nanjinad Vellala Regulation of 1101 M.E. which applies to Nanjinad Vellalas governed by the Marumakkatha -yam Law of succession. This Thavazhi comprised of Arumugham Amma, the eldest daughter of Umayamma (second Defendant), and her four children. The first Defendant Valliamma Paradesi Pilla is the common ancestress of the Tarwad. At the earlier, stages there were issues about the shares to which the Plaintiffs were entitled and other issues set down for decision, but we are now concerned only with two claims by the Appellants: (i) The claim made by the Plaintiffs, in addition to partition, for past maintenance for a period of three years prior to suit at 52 cottas of paddy and 700 fanams per annum; and (ii) the Plaintiff's claim for their share in the cash of Rs. 10,000 belonging to the tarwad.
(2.) Regarding the claim to the last mentioned amount of cash, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the Plaintiffs had not adduced satisfactory proof that the cash remained in the hands of the Defendants. After that, it incurred various items of expenditure like expenditure on litigation and expenditure on the maintenance of the fourth Defendant at Karaikudi, where he had gone for his higher studies. Therefore this part of the claim was disallowed and the learned Judge in appeal also confirmed the decision. Though the Appellants before us purported to contest this decision, at the time of the hearing of the arguments, it was conceded that there was no substantial ground for differing from the conclusion of the two Courts. Therefore the appeal in respect of this claim will be dismissed.
(3.) We will take up next the claim for arrears of past maintenance. In paragraph 19 of the plaint it was alleged that the first Plaintiff got married in 1114 M.E. (1938 -39), that from that time she was residing along with her husband separate from the tarwad, and that on requisition made to Defendants 2 and 3 to pay annually the maintenance due to be paid to the Plaintiffs they had not given the same. But Defendants 2 to 11 in their common written statement denied the above allegations, and alleged that though the first Plaintiff went away from the tarwad and married, money, coconut, paddy, rice and vessels were given to the first Plaintiff as and when she required, and that the allegation made, that maintenance was claimed by the Plaintiffs and had been refused, was false. Exhibit P -4 is a notice issued by P.W. 1 on 9th May 1121 M.E. demanding partition, but no claim was made in that notice, which is the earliest notice issued by the first Plaintiff, that she had any grievance regarding non -payment of past maintenance. It is in this context, that the specified allegation of the Defendants in their written statement that though the first Plaintiff, for her convenience, stayed with her husband in another house, she was getting from the tarwad various articles for her maintenance from time to time and thereby the tarwad effectively discharged its obligation to maintain her, was made. It is only subsequently when a notice, exhibit P -5, was issued by the Plaintiffs on. 6th October 1121 through a lawyer that the claim was made for the first time that the Plaintiffs had not been provided maintenance from 1114 M.E. In his evidence D.W. 1 swore that till 1122 M.E. (the year when the present suit was filed) the tarwad had maintained the daughters, though they had lived in different houses, and that they used to come to the family house for delivery. The first Plaintiff is the eldest daughter of Umayamma Defendant 2 and it is common ground that though she left the tarwad house, she lived in the same village. Therefore it was quite possible, in the ordinary circumstances in which such families live in this part of the country, that she had received continuous help from the tarwad for her maintenance by supplies of rice or condiments or oil or even cash from time to time.;