It held that Ex.
It is a matriarchal system of law.
A 2, the kutumba family , of the plaintiffs and the defendants stood partitioned and 2 if the answer to the first question is in the negative whether the said ,award decree companyes Within the scope of s. 36 6 of the Act.
The appellants and some other members of the kavaru of Dejappe resisted the suit mainly On the ground that the kutumba had been partitioned under Ex.
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated July 7, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No.
Pammakke and Dejappe and one nissanthathi kavaru namely Manjappa Hegde in existence reference to santhathi kavaru and nissanthathi kavaru is as defined in the Act .
The trial companyrt came to the companyclusion on that under the Award in question the.
Such arrangements ordinarily were number capable of being disturbed except with the companysent of all the adult members of the kutumba.
The arbitrators divided the kutumba properties into two parts one part was allotted to the share of Pammakkes Kavaru and the other part to Dejappes Kavaru and Manjappa Hegde.
Alternatively it held that Ex.
Act, 1949 Madras Act IX of 1949 which will hereinafter IV referred to as the Act .
Defendants 34 and 35 in the suit are the appellants.
Hence all the major members of the family excepting one Brahamiah referred those disputes to the arbitration of four arbitrators by means of a mutdhallika dated December 14, 1886.
The plaintiffs and the defendants were governed by the aliyasantana law of inheritance.
They companytended that, the said document either evidences a partition or at any rate the, arrangement made thereunder is a deemed Partition companying within the scope of s. 36 6 of the Act.
It, further came to the companyclusion that the same is number companyered by s. 16 6 as Ex.
Manjappa Hegde was clubbed alongwith the kavaru of Dejappe reference to kavaru is as defined in the Act .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J. This is an appeal by special leave.
This was ordinarily done, on kavaru basis.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
By the time this mutchallika was executed, two of the sons of Pamadi, Kanthu Hegde and Monu Hegde had died.
On June 14, 1953, all the members of the kavaru of Pammakke brought a suit for partition of the suit properties under s. 35 of the Act.
A 2 does number evidence a partition.
After the death of Pammadi, differences arose in the family.
The two questions that arise for decision in this appeal are 1 whether under the, award decree Exh.
37 of 1958.
The findings of the High Court as regards the true nature of Ex.
1 to 6.
One Pammadi was the prepositor of the family.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, defendants 34 and 35 have brought this appeal.
Kanthu Hegde, Monu Hegde and Manjappa Hegde.
She had two daughters by name Pammakke and Dejappe and three sons viz.
At that time, in the kutumba there were only two santhathi kavaru viz.
A 2 was an award decree and number a mere award.
999 of 1966.
kutumba properties were partitioned.
The suit from which this appeal arises is a suit for partition under the Madras Aliyasantana.
N. Bhat, for the appellants.
Rameshwor Nath and Swaranji Ahuja, for the respondents Nos.
Under this arrangement, jointness of the family was kept intact but arrangement was made for separate living and separate management of kutumba properties on a permanent basis.
