Peruri Somanna and Others vs Grandhi Manikam

Ayling, J.—The appellant''s Vakil seeks to distinguish this case from Venhata Chinnaya Row v. Venkataramaya 4 M.k 137 on the ground that, here, no consideration can be said to have moved from the plaintiff. It appears to me that it may fairly be inferred (as the lower Courts have inferred) that Mullaya recognized the claim of plaintiff to maintenance, and that the undertaking of his brothers to satisfy it was one of the considerations which induced him to relinquish his right to the family property on the somewhat unfavourable terms set forth in that document. It may also be inferred that, if the brothers had not undertaken this liability, Mulaya would have maintained her himself and expected better terms for himself as regards partition. The case seems to stand on all fours with that of Button v. Poole 1 Vent 318 quoted in Venhata Chinnaya Row v. Venkatramaya 4 M.k 137 for the daughter, Girisel in that case, had no more legal claim on Sir Edward Poole than plaintiff had on Mullaya, and also with the case disposed of in that ruling, Venkata Chinnaya Row v. Venkatramyah 4 M.k 137. The partition-deed between the brothers, though not contemporaneous, corresponds in appearance to the Karadnawa in the latter case. I The view taken by the lower Courts is correct and the appeal is dismissed.