Audi Raju Pyrappa And Anr. vs Audi Raju Syma Rao And Anr. on 7 August, 1918
There are some observations of Sir Bnashyam Ayyangar J., in Gunnaiyan, v. Kamakchi Ayyar 26 M. 339 in favour of this argument, but as the learned Judge had not in his contemplation the case of an enfranchisement after partition we cannot treat them as authority here as pointed out by my learned brother neither the observations in this case nor those in Karri Ramayya v. Villoori Jagannadham 30 Ind. Cas. 889 : 39 M. 930 : 2 L.W. 874 : 18 M.L.T. 360 : (1915) M.W.N. 838 are of any authority on the point before us. The respondents' Vakil has, however, drawn our attention* to three unreported decisions of this Court in Second Appeal No. 49 of 1911, Appeal No. 79 of 1917 and Appeal No. 176 of 1917, where the enfranchisement took place after partition. In those cases persons who had divided off from the persons who' subsequently obtained the title-deeds for the enfranchised lands were held to be entitled to shares in those lands. They are, no doubt, authority for holding that partition before enfranchisement is not in itself conclusive of the question whether a person has rights or not in the enfranchised lands. But in all those oases there were circumstances justifying the inference that was drawn in them, that in spite of the partition the rights of the divided members were kept alive in the Inam lands at the date of enfranchisement. In Second Appeal No. 49 of 1911 the learned Judges say that it was not disputed that the land was treated as property in which all the members of the family had an interest; in Appeal No, 79 of 1917 they say there can be no doubt the lands were enjoyed in common." Appeal No. 176 of 1917 followed the ruling in Appeal No. 79 of 1917. These rulings thus show that even though a person may have been divided off from the person who subsequently obtained the title deed for the en-franohised land, he may prove that his right was kept intact at the partition and claim his share.