In the result in giving a decree for maintenance, he did number take into companysideration the income from the said property.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated July 15, 1955 of Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No.
The defendants in their written statement denied that the said property was the property of the tavazhi, but alleged that it was purchased from ,and out of the private funds of defendants 1 and her son, defendant 4.
142 of 1951.
In this appeal, the plaintiffs, the first defendant and other defendants have been impleaded as respondents.
The 4th defendant, after obtaining the certificate from the High Court, has preferred the present appeal to this Court against the judgment of the said Court.
273 of 1963.
In the plaint it was alleged that the said Chalakkode nilam property was the property of the tavazhi and, therefore, they were entitled to maintenance from the income of the said property also.
The plaintiffs filed the suit against the tavazhi represented by its manager and others, for arrears of maintenance due to them and for other reliefs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
One of the issues raised was whether the property referred to in paragraph 5 of the plaint was tavazhi property from which maintenance companyld be claimed.
Plaintiffs in O.S. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao, J. This appeal by certificate raises the question, whether a certain property, described as Chalakkode property, is the property of the Tavazhi of which the appellant and his mother are members or the separate property of the appellant.
V. Visvanatha Sastri and V. A. Seyid Muhammad, for respondents Nos.
The learned Subordinate Judge held that the said property did number belong to the tavazhi but it was the personal property of defendants I and 4.
On appeal, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, having regard to the relevant presumptions under the Malabar law, held that the said property belonged to the tavazhi in the result, it allowed the appeal and remanded the suit to the Court of the Subordinate Judge for fixing the rate of maintenance after taking into account the income from the said property also.
C. Chatterjee and R. Thagarajan, for the appellant.
1 to 24.
The said tavazhi owns a number of properties.
108 of 1948 in the Court of the Sub ordinate Judge, Palghat, and the defendants in the said suit are members of a Malabar tavazhi originally it was a branch of a tarwad, but separated itself from the said tarwad on July 13, 1934 under a decree in a partition suit.
