AS/16/1951 of ASIA DAUGHTER OF ATHRUMAN OF COLLAMPATTU Vs CHITHOMMA DAUGHTER OF AJEETH OF CHOLLAMPATTU on 11 November 1953

1. As1.a· c1aughtcr of A"l;hrwnanOf Choli0mnattu !'GS1.Cl2.ng inValiaparambil, Manthanam Km.:ia,..:tli.;ngac1. Pakuthy.

2. Eb:.i:-ayi.nkutty so.r: of Athruman. of do.

3. thrumasn Ajoethu 0£ do.

By Advocat~ Sr.i P.Nm:'ayuna Pillai.

Rggpyn@get-- lst dcfandant:-

Chithomma daughter 9f Ajooth of Cliollam.:pattu !'GSic1.ing atMargalassci,Chcranalloor Muri, Kanayanrur iakx taluk.

By ac1.vocat, Sri N .Varadaraja Iy,mgm.:-.

Thc bovo ppoal having bccn finally hoard on llh lovembor "'1953, thG Coill..ton thosamc day delivarod tho following:- JTJDGlv'.Cfilfr •

..The 3 pla5.ntiffs whoa!'G tho ap!)Gllantsa!'G tllG chilc1]~Qnof' Athrumm.an, who dicd in tlrnytH:l!' 1099, tlt!:>ough his scco.r.:.c1 w:1.fowho is tho ?th dcfcndant.Thay suad for partition anc1c1oliVG!'Ythcir sharcs in the popcrtis dscribd in thrcc sbhcdulcsto thG plaint,markGd A,B and C.The 1st c1ofonc1ant is Ahrumgn'sloistc!' and dcfondants[ 2][ t][o][ 6][ a][·][::a][e][ t][h][e][ c][h][:1][.][l][c][1][7-'][G][n][ o][f]1!1Gothian who cU.oc1:1.n tlli yoar 1094. Ta suit was f1.lod. in thGyGer 111? whQn pla:i.ntiffs 1 and 2 hac1 attai.nGc1 major:1.ty bu·!; th0f3rci. :plaintiffhad rot;who aleo attain'-ic1 maj 6ri ty l)Gnc1ing suit./,\.;,During th0 inino!'i ty of thca plaintiffs,1.n tho yoar 1100,thG!'G'/,\.;,was a pr:l:i:'tition·(Ex.I) of 0'11 the propc!'tios incluc1Gc1 in thofschcdulcskto tho plaint. At that atitcio, tho plaintiffswczc:!:'Gp!'GSGhtoc1. byt'hlci.moth,cr as gua:!.."(~t: .!.Bn.·J,.01(;J_-J. •_ni.; •1. .r,.1.J..r,S1•mpG!:]C.,!1GCl~tlrnt pa!'t:1.tion., into!' alia,on thGg'.!~OW1<1. that w1c1G'.!:' thr; Moham-mac1an Law by·which they arc gvcrnc@, ths mothcr is not raog-niscd as guardian und sho wa, tho::.-cforiG,5.nc ompotcnt to 2cpzc-scnt thom, with tho r@sult that Ex.I cannot bo !'oga!'dcc1. as a iJf'/,\.;, l;__;, tJ:-ansaction to which the plaintiffswwcro part:ics. ?le±isTCl- .-:-d-·m'~ -::i 5/8sha.rG of.:1.tGm.s l to 4 in tho A schedule to thepla~.nt as oxclu~iv~ly_ belonging to thGi:i.. fat.he.!'.'11.llis oxcl u-sivo claim had rot bccr ccogriocd.:1.n Ex.I.

2. ThG suit was contasttJd_by the 1st c1cfcnde.::t asalso by CQ!'tain other c1Gfe:ndants. Plaintiffs SQttlec1 thei:.i:-cl~i.m.s with all ,xcGpt the. 1st difondant an.cl a compro.mj_scctitin was pzcscrtc@ in courton 2.l2.ll20 as e consequaneo--of whichclQfG.!:.fiants 2 onwa:i:ds as also tha p~:'Ol)<ii!'ti Gs claimGc1by them WG!'G takG!l but of th, 'ambit of the litigai;:l.on.What:r-c;nw.:1.n.ccl in the plaint was thc;-lstc1efGn.famt who was in pos-s00oi on of itQms 1 to 4 of th\; A schw<lulc and thQ:plaintiffsclaim,on the basis of thc allcgGcl cxclus1v c titlc of thoi:i..CtQCGasoc1 fathG:!... in !'GS:pGCt th<.i:!.."'GOf, to a 5/8 shac.

3. Th(2 coll!'t bQlow consiclc::i:ivd that f. on account of thecliminuti ~m of tho scopG of the litigation causec1 by the com-promise, tho suit bccame one for pa::i:-tial pa::i:-t:1.tion and thG!'ij-fore unsustainable.Thcourt bclow found too that thc pa;i-tionc1.~d of 1100 which is impGaclrnc1 by thG :plaint.:1.ffs was tothG obvious ac1v::L'!tagG of the plaintiffs an.cl thQ!'Cfo!'e binding""upon thc;;rn ·notwtthstanclir,:,g tho fact that thQy w<.2:'<:i not1.ep:i.0-S'intwd by thcai!' lugal guar-clian. ThG court bGlow was of thGVifiW that th<a mothQ!' tha ?th dGfc.ndant though not ac1g j\.D:'Ggua1:-c1ian was a clu facto gua2"dia11 anc1 was cnti tlod as such tozsprcscnthe minors in a transaction which vvas., in th<; court':;vicw,pny tohadvantage. Intchis view, thouiwdismisscd by tho court; bslow.

4. Lcarrcd coursol for thc appellants urges bc£orG usthat Ex.I, tho partition docd 0£ l100,cannot bc consideredto bo a t:ra.r!Saction to which t.hu pm.aint:1.ffs_\llG!'G pa:rt.:1.Gs bo-cauSQ th?Y WG!'G not:.i:-opr-<iiscntod by thoi!' dG j U!'Q gua:::clian.A Full..EGnch of thisCow:-t in. 1951 K.L.T.223 bclc1 thut a -t:i:a.r.:.Sactiop. by which a mi nDr-.:1.s S()ught to bc bound but inwlltch that mino::i."' is not 1:'Ql)!'asontQd by a do jU!'G gua:rdian, is vaic1. Tat cac no doubt !'elated to mcmbc~:>s of tho Chr-is-tian camunity but the pinciple laidclown thc:i...cin is, as th(;casu itsGlf _shows,gqually if not mor-,, applicr:::ible to tho caocof1-Jiuslim. minors. In A.I.R.1952 Supri;mcCDU.!'t 358 it was 1l£ilc1

that,:,__

"A c1God~)f fam:1.ly sottlcmcr.:.t to wh:i.ch s lVIulrnn1r!iac1an min0::r:isparty rcpcscntcd by.his brothar as de facto guardian isvoid and notb::l.n.c1.:!.ng on thG minor, irJ:'€SpGct.:1.voof thG cansi-dorations that it bcncfitto@ him or the arangcmcni; was fl-lowGd fo:.i.. a long pw:...:l.:)c1" anc1 that·"A dcc@ of sottlomcnt which is thus void qua the minois void altogcthor qua all the ,pa:i:t:l.cs:l.nclud:l.ng those·who wc;;:e:-csui juris."

i'

Ex.Itherof O!'Q voic"i and tlH; plaintiffsarGontitlc-c.1 to ig-n:.,'.i:'Q5. t andclt:1:l.m thci:i... r-oliGfs as though suchr:::in ovcmt nQv~rhap:-90nGc1.Thec1Gc:l.s5.on of tho c ow:-t below ca.:;.not, thG:.i...cf or(J,b~ supportgc1 on thG g:-oun.c1 that to Ex.I the mothu!'af tht; :plain-tiffs was a:pa:i:-ty, no:.i... on th'1 gr-ow1d, asswning it.:ts 002:1:i:-oct,that the transaction is obviously to thG advantage of tlrn plain-tiffs.The athc:i:- g::i:>ounc1 !'GliGd upon by tho court below to d:l.s-miss tho suit is that on account of tho compromiscwich dofcr-dants 2 onwa:.i...cls, tho suit has bocamG an@ f o:r partial parti-ti......o~n-'which also cannot bc'IV sustainod. iullg in hi "Pinciplcof lvlaho!i1Gc1en Law",13th ;{ oc1itian, 1950, pag~ 33, says:-"In a suit by an hoir fo~:- the!'CiC ovr;;ry of hisshm:-c,the co-hsirs arc propcr parties; but as thintercsts £ thchairs arc distinct, thoomission to join a co·-hcd:.i.."' is not agood:.i..·ca90n £ O!'c15.sm5.os:1.ng ..tlrn su:1.t. n

5...r;-;. plea that a su:1. t for part:1.tion is bad on the g:i:-oun.c1that it is anQ fo~:' partial pm:-tit.:1.on wh:1.ch mr:ly bGr:::i gooc1 on\lin- tho ca9c £::l joint t,mancy cannot be up!rnlcl:1.n tllG c0s~Dfa suit for- pa:i:1t.Ltion b:i:-ought by lvloharn.1.118c1on heirs.The C och:l.nHie;].1OoU.!'t in X..::J"I Cochin 153:.i.."'Gpcllcc1 such a plca. c cons:1.-d.G!' that it is comp@tcnt for thc plain.tiffs to cluim:i:>clicfsr::igainst the 1stc1GfGnc1.1:m'i; alone,confining the !'Gl:1.Gfs to -iterns 1 to 4 of the A schcc1ulG to which the suit got:i:-oc1uccclon account of the[c][om][p]t[r][o][mi][s][e]dintobyaihoplsinti£iswith c1ai'0nchmts 2 onwm:cls.Thec1cc:i:'cGaf the cow:-t below dis-rrd.cc:1.ng the suit cann~)t, thc:r.>Gfo1:>G, be suppo:i:-tccl wh:tch:1.s - i'

Ij

thc!'Gfo!'G sc.:t as:1.ci.c and tho appc;al allowGd.6.Tho cou:i...t bQlow · cl:Ld notcons:1.clo!' tho sp@cial ch:::Lmmad.<,, by tho pL:intiffs asJ:>oga2."ds itcm.s l to 4 in tho.H. scllcduL.That cle:1.m has to bo considccd ard for its cons:1.clc!'ation we!'Cmand thGcasG to t.hGCDU!'t bolow aftG1'.' sott:1.ng asidf.i thfiicl~C!'GCpesscd by that court. If thc plaint1££sGstablis.h oit.ho:i.."' that the '\5/8 claimcd by them.O!'· any othC!' f:r.action of. thG :-ightsOVG!'it<';l!l~ 1 to 4 i.!1 t~1c .'1. scllc dulo b clongccl axe lusi VGly to th@i:rJ"d~ce:asccl. fatha::::-, thG!:. tho s:pGcial1.:1.ghts · that :they a!'G ont:1.tlGdto would bc dccrccd to th<am. It would be compGtcnt f02."' tlw 1stdofonclant to urge pleas in arswoz to thiscciel claim. It woulc"i.bo opcn £o thc lat dcfcr&ant to apply in thc court bolow to-.'or all the part:1.csshouldtchat bc ncossazy £oz protecting ho int:cross in·tho-1)0parties dcaltwhat tho partition intchc yoar1100CohG:i:-o and. h:!.thc:i:-to as bctwocn tho plaint.:1.ffs encl tho 1stc1Gfon-c1aEt upon tho:i:-oducocl litigation, that:1.s the li tlgation that.-tl1'l):'G isaftG!' thoC Ofill)!'Dm.i so, w2.ll be cos ts:!..!1 thecgusG rdwill bc providad £o by tho locr court in its rcvisd dcczcG- .1iminus the coU!'t foa paic1:1.n this.:1ppGal which will bo zcfundcdIto thc appellants. Thc othor costs incur±cd will becosts th:i:-own;.,Iaway.\