Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. These are nine consolidated appeals from a decree, dated November 15, 1916, of the High Court at Madras which varied a decree, dated September 4, 1908, of the Subordinate Judge of Nagapatam,

2. The suit in which these appeals have arisen was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on July 2 1905, by three plaintiffs, who were reversionera of Arunachala Mudaliar, against thirty-eight defendants for the possession of lands which were alleged by the plaintiffs to be lands of the Kulikara estate in the District of Tanjore and for mesne profits. The title of the plaintiffs to sue was denied by the defendant on various grounds, of which those which are now important and have to be considered are whether the suit was not barred by the result of a litigation which began in 1887 and ended in a final decree in 1892, and whether the suit was not otherwise barred by the law of limitation.

3. The Kulikara estate admittedly belonged to Arunachala when he died in 1849. He was then about twenty-two years of age. The family to which he belonged were Hindus of the sudra caste. He had been adopted by Vaithialinga Mudaliar, a relation who was descended from an ancestor from whom Arunachala also was descended. The plaintiffs are the three sons of Chokkappa Mudaliar, who was the youngest of three brothers by birth, that is natural brothers, of Arunachala. Arunachala died childless, leaving a widow, Chokkamal, who died on December 25, 1902, within twelve years before this suit was instituted. She was a defendant to the suit with which the litigation of 1887 commenced. It will be necessary to refer at some length to that litigation. The following pedigree will show Arunachala and his natural brothers and some other persons :-

4. Arunachala, as whose reversioners the plaintiffs claim to be, had before his death directed his wife Chokkammal to adopt as a son to him his natural brother Alagusundara. In 1862 chokkanmal did as a fact adopt Alagusundara as a son to her late husband. Algusundara was a younger natural brother of Arunachala, and at the time of adoption there was no one living who could give him in adoption. As a matter of Hindu law the adoption was invalid,

5. In 1862 Ohokkammal, having adopted Alagusundara, put him in possession of the immoveable property now in question, reserving to herself for her maintenance some of the immoveable property to which she was entitled as the widow of Arunachala. With the property which she reserved for her maintenance this suit is not concerned. There can be no doubt that in 1862 Chokkammal did put Alagusundara in possession of property now in question. In March 1862, she presented an undated petition to the Talmldar of Nannilam, the Revenue Officer, in which she stated that, with the consent of her husband, she had adopted Alagusundara, his natural younger brother, and with the exception of certain villages which she named, she had made him proprietor of all the land and other properties, etc., standing in her name, and prayed that, with the exception of the three villages, the miras" (ownership) might be transfer-ed to him and all the sircar proceedings might be passed in his name.

8. On February 9, 1887, Murugathal brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nagapatam against Chokkammal and others, in which she claimed a decree for the possession of the properties now in question, alleging in her plaint that her husband Alagusundara had been the adopted eon of Arunachala, and that the properties which she claimed belonged to him as such adopted son, and had been enjoyed by him from 1862 until he died in 1864; that after his death her adopted son Thiagaraja had enjoyed them until he died in 1881, and after him his widow, Kamalath, got them according to Hindu law and she died childless in 1882, and since her death she, Murugathal, got them under Hindu law and enjoyed them until 1884, when Chokkammal forcibly took possession of them and enjoyed them adversely to her. Chokkammal in her written statement in that suit denied Murugathal's title, alleged that she, Chokkammal, had been in possession of the property in question for thirty-eight years from the death of her husband Arunachala in 1849, and denied that Alagusundara had been adopted. Several issues were framed by the Subordinate Judge in that suit, who found that Alagusundara was adopted as a son to Arunachala in 1862 by Ohokkammal, who had the authority of her husband to make the adoption, that the adoption was invalid according to Hindu law, that Thiagaraja was adopted by Murugathal under the authority of her husband but that the course of conduct of Chokkammal and the change of position of Alagusundara as the result of his adoption made it inequitable to hold that he had not title to the property, and that the putting him in possession of the property in question and allowing him to manage it for his own purposes substantially operated as a gift of the property to him. The Subordinate Judge in that suit also held that Murugathal's claim of adverse possession of the miras for twelve years was established, and on December 18, 1889, he gave her a decree for possession of the property which she claimed. From that decree of the Subordinate Judge the suit of 1887 went on appeal by Chokkammal to the High Court at Madras. The learned Judges of the High Court held that Alagusundara's adoption was invalid, but holding that Murugathal's claim of adverse possession for twelve years was established, by their decree of August 17, 1892, dismissed Chok-kammal's appeal. Chokkammal did not appeal from that decree of the High Court, and it became final.