The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Madras High Court.
February 24.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 13, 1955, of the Madras High Court in A. S. No.
In 1949 the two daughters claimed possession of their lands and their claim was that they were entitled in law having regard to the provisions of the will to select their respective one veli of anja land and one veli of punja land from out of the land in vattam 149.
The facts lie in a narrow companypass and may be briefly stated.
The appellant then applied for leave to appeal and was granted a certificate and that is how the matter has companye tip before us.
One Viswanatha Iyer, who died in 1927 had a number of properties.
He had numbermale issue but left two daughters surviving him who were minors at the time of his death.
Consequently, the daughters filed this suit in July, 1949, and claimed in Schedules and D of the plaint certain properties out of vattam 149 on the ground of selection made by them.
The suit was resisted by the appellant who was prepared for a partition of land according to quality but was number prepared, to accept the right of selection claimed by the daughters.
He was treated as a foster son abhimanputra by Viswanatha and was also minor at the time of his death.
175/in cash towards their properties after deducting the kist each year.
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondents.
The appellant is the third son of Seetharama.
He had a brother Seetharama Iyer who died in 1934.
It appears that after the death of the testator, Seetharama remained in possession of the entire properties and thereafter on his death Balakrishnan came to be in possession of them.
The appellant did number accept this right of selection and companytended that the daughters were entitled to their lands taking into account lands of good and bad quality.
Thereafter he used to pay 224 kalam of paddy and Rs.
It was also provided in the will that Seetharama should pay to the minor daughters the income from the properties devised to them after the death of the testator.
It appears that after the two daughters were married and became major, Balakrishnan paid them certain monies as due to them out of the income of the properties in May, 1942.
86 of 1957.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, M. S. K. Sastri, Gopalaratnam and S. Narasimhan, for T. K. Sundara Raman, for the appellant.
673 of 1950.
