24,000.
It was also companytended that the plaintiff companyld number claim any interest in the properties during the life time of his father.
He hypothecated the family properties to the 5th defendant and obtained money.
There was numbercustomary right of birth in the companymunity to which the plaintiff belonged and even if such right existed the plaintiff was bound to pay off his fathers debts on the doctrine of pious obligation before claiming any partition in respect of the properties.
In execution, one Harihara Subramania lyer purchased the equity of redemption on 31st Karkata in 1108 July August, 1933 .
The suit for partition was dismissed on November 14, 1933 as by this date the equity of redemption had been sold in execution of simple money decree against defendants 8 and 9 in O.S. 203 of 1107 M.E .
The claim of the appellant was based on the allegation that Vannia Tamil Christians living in Chittur Taluk were governed as a matter of custom by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law.
It was said that he had numbernotice of any vgitiating circumstance affecting the title at public auction companyducted by the Official Receiver.
As possession had already been taken by the auction purchaser in execution of the decree passed against them, the 9th defendant did number press the partition suit O.S. 65 of 1107.
P.W. 19 deposed that the plaintiff s father was keeping a married woman called Thankammal.,
The appellant thereafter brought the present suit for partition.
After the death of his father Kanakappa Koundan, the 8th defendant became the manager of the family.
The plaintiff and defendants 8 and 9 are Tamil Vannian Christians of Chittur Taluk who are governed in the matter of inheritance and succession by Hindu Mithakshara law.
Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated July 13, 1960 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No.
The plaint properties belonged to the family of plaintiff and defendants 8 and 9 which yield an annual profits of 4000 paras of paddy and Rs.
213 of 1107 ME was number incurred for legal necessity but was incurred for immoral purposes and so the mortgage debts were number binding on the appellant.
The suit was decreed and the decreeholder executed the decree.
He claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value of the entire interest in the property from the Official Receiver in whom the properties had vested on the insolvency of Sadasiva lyer.
The appellant was, therefore, entitled to one fourth share in the properties and to partition of his one fourth share.
The promisee endorsed the numbere to Ramachandra lyer on 24th Thulam 1107 equivalent to November, 1932 .
He sold the property in auction and the deceased 1st defendant became the purchaser for Rs.
75 of 1107 M.E. of the Trichur District Court and impeaching the validity of the debts, the 9th defendant who was a minor at that time filed a suit for partition of his half share in O.S. 65 of 1107 M.E. in the same District Court.
The Subordinate Judge came to the following findings The plaintiff has established the custom that Vanniya Tamil ,Christians of Chittur Taluk were governed in the matter of inheritance and succession by Hindu Mitakshara law.
The plaintiff has acquired right by birth in the ancestral properties and was entitled to claim a share therein and the properties acquired with the aid of income from ancestral properties also became joint family properties.
It was said that joint family relationship subsisted as between father and sons and where the father has inherited properties from his father, they became ancestral properties in his hands and so his sons acquired a right therein by birth including the right to claim the property by survivorship.
After the sale, defendant number 1 became the absolute owner of the properties and was in full possession and enjoyment of the same.
The auctionpurchaser was duly put in possession on 22.3.1109 1933 .
The plaint properties were companymitted to the possession of the 7th defendant as receiver in those suits.
The properties at that time were in the possession of the 9th defendant for sometime as receiver and then in the hands of a vakil appointed by the Court in his place.
251 of 1956.
40/ per mensem to the 9th defendant as maintenance till the disposal of the suit.
The plaintiff is the son of the 8th defendant and the 9th defendant is the brother of the 8th defendant.
251 of 1956 E .
The plaintiff has acquired a right by birth in the ancestral properties and during the life time of his father the son has a right to claim partition.
1,500 the companysideration for which was paid partly in cash and partly in discharge of an earlier promissory numbere dated 11th Vaisakhi 1104 June, 1929 .
It was also said that the decree debt in O.S. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
By its judgment the High Court allowed the appeal of the deceased M. R. Chinnaswamy Goundan, 1st defendant, reversing the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chittur in O.S. No.
Ramachandra lyer filed a suit on this numbere, O.S. 213 of 1107 on 6.5.1107 1931 against the 8th and 9th defendants.
In 1938 Sadasiva lyer was adjudged insolvent and the official receiver took possession.
The 5th defendant sued upon the mortgage bond in O.S. No.
During the pendency of the two suits the 5th defendant applied for the appointment of a receiver and the Court appointed the 7th defendant, a friend of the 5th defendant, as receiver with a direction to pay Rs.
T. Desai, C. H. Subramanya Iyer and S. Balakrishnan, for respondent No.
The appellant also claimed in the alternative a decree for payment of Rs.
The deceased, 1st defendant, companytested the suit.
S. Desai and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by certificate from the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated July 13, 1960 in Appeal Suit No.
The doctrine is a necessary and logical companyollary to the doctrine of the right of the son by birth to a share of the ancestral property and both these companyceptions are companyrelated.
It was also said that the debt which Was the basis of the decree in S. 213 of 1107 ME was number tainted by illegality or immorality.
131 of 1950 which the appellant had filed on March 31, 1949 in forma pauperis for declaring that certain execution proceedings resulting in the sale of suit properties were invalid and for partition of one fourth share therein.
The disputed properties were attached.
1,5001 .
He led an immoral life and incurred debts for immoral purposes.
The, mortgagee Sadasiva lyer who had obtained a decree on one of the mortgages on 29 3 1109 M.E , purchased the property from the auction purchaser on 5 5 1109 1934 .
30,000/ as damages sustained by him on account of fraud and companylusion in the execution proceedings.
The 8th defendant for himself and as guardian of his younger brother executed a promissory numbere on 11.10.1105 equivalent to May 1930 to one Somasundara Swamiyar for Rs.
Exhibit XIV is the sale deed executed by the Official Receiver on 13 7 1116 1941 .
2020 of 1966.
