Ammacannu Ammal vs Ranganatha Chetty and Others

S. Subramania Aiyar, C.J.—This suit was dismissed with reference to the finding of the learned Judge on the issue as to whether the

deceased Thiruvangada Chetty, the father of the plaintiff and uncle of the 1st defendant and husband of the 3rd defendant was at his death divided

or undivided from the 1st defendant. The finding was that they were undivided and the learned Judge held that the suit was unsustainable as with

reference to such a finding the plaintiff as the daughter of an undivided member could not rely on any reversionary right in respect of property of the

undivided family. Such disposal of the suit would of course be perfectly right if as was apparently assumed by the learned Judge, the plaintiff''s case

was based on an alleged reversionary right tinder the Hindu Law. Though the plaint is not artistically framed, there can be no doubt that the

plaintiff''s claim was based entirely upon whatever rights she might have under the instrument of family arrangement of the 30th May 1904 executed

between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff, subsequent to the death of Thiruvangada Chetty. The said instrument after reciting certain alleged oral

directions of Thiruvangada Chatty and also that the parties to the arrangement were desirous of giving effect to and carrying out the said directions,

provides that the first defendant is entitled to two-fifths of the property and that as to the remaining three-fifths of the property the 3rd defendant is

entitled thereto for her life, and after her the plaintiff for her life and then the latter''s issue absolutely. It is also further provided that certain business

carried on by the deceased Thiruvangada Chetty should be continued by the first defendant and letters of administration if necessary taken in the

names of the first and third defendants. The complaint of the plaintiff is that certain mortgages and sales of part of the property to which she is

entitled as aforesaid after the death of the 3rd defendant, have been made under circumstances which render those transfers not binding upon her

and her prayer is that they should be declared invalid as against her. In this view of the plaintiff''s claim, whether her father was undivided with the

first defendant or not is immaterial. Assuming they were undivided the effects of the family arrangement taking it to be binding on the parties

thereto, as prima facie it should be taken to be, was. to confer on the 3rd defendant and the plaintiff the interests purported thereby to be created

in their favour respectively. It follows that the suit should not have been dismissed on the ground on which it was. The decree of the learned Judge

is reversed and the suit remanded for disposal according to law. The costs of the appeal will abide and follow the result.

Sankaran Nair, J.

I concur.