9911796707
TMI Blog1911 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouse on the property and entitles him to receive at the expiry of the kanom the value of the house as well as compensation for other improvements that he might make. The plaintiff impeaches the demise as an improvident transaction which the second defendant as manager has no power to make, and claims to recover the premises and to have the building erected by the first defendant pulled down and removed, and states that he is not bound to pay any compensation for the building. The first and second defendants contend that the property in suit; belongs tin the second defendant; alone, that the other members of the tar wad have no title to it during her life, and that the demise by her in favour of the first defendant is valid. The first defendant claims in case of eviction to be entitled do compensation for the value of the building. The property in dispute together wish a large number of other items of property was the subject of a deed of gift executed in 1857 in favour of the second defendant's mother, Ammu Arama, by her husband, one K, Govinda Manon, and it is on the construction of this instrument that the first and second defendants contend that the second defendant is exclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he instrument which, as already stated, is a deed of gift executed by K. Govinda Man on in favour of Ammu Amma are: I have now given properties consisting among others of land, paramba, and house, particulars whereof are given below.... In all, properties to the value of ₹ 10,000 are as aforesaid given to you as yours, and I have delivered the documents, etc., relating thereto, and now in my possession. Therefore I have resolved that, acting in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof, you and your santhanams should be in enjoyment for over, along with me at the said Puthiaveetu as long as I live and in proprium thereafter. The document recites that the donor had already given some proportion to the donee and her santanams permanently and for ever. The provision entitling the donor to joint enjoyment with the donee during his life-time may for the purposes of this case be neglected, At the time of the gift Ammu Amma had several children besides the second defendant, but the second defendant is the only survivor of them at present, The gift may be briefly stated to be one to Ammu Amma and her children, The appellant's contention is that it should be regarded as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is or her interest contrary to the Marumakattayam law. In Abdulla v. Ckekkootti (1910) 20 M.L.J. 368 and in Parvathi Kattiammah v. Ramaahandra Ejaman (1910) 1 M.W.N. 124 it was held that those who take under such an instrument of gift would be regarded as a tarwad for the purpose of management of the property and that the senior male member would have the right of management as in the case of ordinary tarwad property. Mr. Ramachandra Ayyar relies on certain observations contained in the judgment of Moore and Sankarsn Nair, 33., in Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar (1906) I.L.R. 29 Mad. 322 in support of his contention that so long as the second defendant should live the other members of the tarwad would have no right to the property in question. In that case the gift was made to a woman and her children, A decree was obtained by a creditor against the assets of one of the children who had died prior to the suit. The decree-holder sought to attach his interest in the gifted property, but the learned Judges held that the share of the deceased passed by survivorship to the other children and that the creditor had nothing to proceed against. The case therefore affirms the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bi (1909) I.L.R. 32 Mad. 315, which quote it with approval. The question--what rights a karnavan of such special property hold by a branch of a tarwad would have with respect to the other members of the branch--has not been elucidated by the learned Judges who decided Koroth Amman Kutti v. Petungottil Appu Nambiar (1906) I.L.R. 129 Mad. 322. But there can to no doubt that ho can-not have all the rights of a karnavan over the junior members of his tarwad. Ho is not their guardian and has no right of supervision or control over them. He is not responsible for their protection, education, or maintenance. His right is confined to the management of the special property owned by him and the other members of his branch. The title to manage them has been upheld as already mentioned in Abdulla v. Chekkooti (1910) 20 M.L.J. 368 and Parvaihi Kattilammah v. Ramachundra Ejaman (1910) 1 M.W.N. 124. What his duties are with respect to the disposal of the income of the property and what the rights of the other members of the branch are to receive a portion of the income are points that have not got been judicially decided, and it is not necessary to make any further remarks on them as they do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other hand that the tarwad is growing in numbers and that the demised paramba which is adjacent to the tarwad house may to required for the construction of an additional residence for the members of the family. It is no doubt true that as between co-owners generally one of them who takes possession of a portion of the common holding cannot be said to be necessarily a wrong-doer, and that this would to so even if he raised substantial buildings thereon. The principles applicable in cases have been laid down in numerous decisions, which have bean collated in the elaborate judgment of Mookerjee, J., in Ananda Chandra Sen v. Parbati Nath Sen (1906) 4 C.L.J. 198. The learned Judge states the principle thus: Now, as was pointed out in Mohesh Narain v. Nawbut Pathak (1905) 1 C.L.J. 437, although in the case of immoveable property, jointly owned, each co-owner is in theory interested in every infinitesimal portion of the subject-matter, and each has the right, irrespective of the quantity of the interest, to be in possession of every part and parcel of the property, jointly with the others, yet it does not follow, that one joint-owner is entitled to maintain an action in ejectment agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ksirnavan and make it impossible for him to carry on the management of the estate. It would therefore be impossible to hold that any anantharavan might take possession of any particular portion of the family estate he might choose and erect buildings on it and continue in occupation of it. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar relies in support of his contention on Nocury Lall Chucherbutty v. Bindabun Chinder Chuaksrbutty (1882) I.L.R. 8 Calc. 708. In that case one of the co-paracers of a Dayabhaga family in Bengal had occupied and constructed a building on a piece of land belonging to the family and the question was whether the plaintiff in the suit, another member (it does not appear that he was the manager) was entitled to have the building demolished. It was found that the plaintiff took no steps to prevent the erection of the building when it was actually going on, MC DONELL and Field, JJ., held that in the circumstances of the case demolition should not be ordered as he had failed to show that injury had accrued to him by reason of the erection of the building. The decision is not applicable to the present case. In so far as it proceeds on any estoppel of the plaintiff in consequence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
