N. Varada Pillai vs Jeevarathnammal on 20 June, 1919
As we have already indicated, there is nothing in the judgment of the Privy Council in Varada Pillai v. Jeevarathnammal ('19) 6 A.I.R. 1919 P.C. 44 which in any way supports the case for the respondent. If it were a question of proving an oral agreement entered into after that embodied in the unregistered document evidence of subsequent conduct could, of course, be led in proof of the subsequent oral agreement, but not with regard to the earlier one. In the present case a division by metes and bounds took place before the execution of the partition deed. As the property in suit admittedly had belonged to the joint family, the change in its character must be proved. As the agreement for partition cannot be proved, the Court can only regard the property as still belonging to the joint family. Moreover, as Patanjali Sastri J. pointed out, one co-owner cannot maintain a suit for trespass against another co-owner. For the reasons given, the appeal must be allowed with costs throughout.