AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The question argued in these appeals had regard to the nature of the title created by Mayan Kutti and others in favour of the plaintiff''s father,
Kadar Kutti. It was. argued on the one hand that Kadar Kutti and the fellow donees took the property as tenants in common, each being entitled
to deal with his own share of it, and in support of that view the case reported in Narayanan v. Kantian ILR (1881) M. 315 and cases following it
were cited .On the other hand it was contended that the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the donees taking under Exhibit, I took the
property as tarwad property and that therefore no one of them could deal with any part of it as his own. We are disposed to think that the principle
laid down in Sreemutty Rabutty Dossee v. Sibchunder Mullick (1851) 6 M.I.A. 1 and Mahomed Sumsool v. Shewukram (1874) L.R. 2 IndAp
14 is applicable to the present case. The decision however in Narayanan v. Kannan ILR (1881) M. 315 appears to be in conflict with that
principle and we reserved judgment in order to see whether a reference to the Full Bench was necessary but we think that the appeal may be
disposed of without any such [741] reference. Even assuming that Kadar Kutti. did take a share in the property which it was competent to him to
deal with individually, his sons claiming by gift under him could not recover in the present suit, inasmuch as it is not in the nature of a partition suit
and the co-doness of Kadar Kutti are not joined.
We dismiss these appeals with costs.