TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1918 (6) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at one time belonged to Narayanasami Pillai, an ancestor of the parties, and on his death it passed to his three sons as members of a joint family. In the year 1845 a partition took place, under the terms of which the eldest son relinquished all interest in the mitta, which thereupon became vested in their two younger sons, Gopala Krishna Pillai and Parthasarathi Pillai, in equal shares. No question arises as to the share of Gopala Krishna; but it is material to state that, on his death in the year 1879 his share became vested in his widow, Rajammal, and that he left issue one child only, a daughter named Duraisani. 3. Parthasarathi died in the year 1867, having made a will upon which a question of construction arises. Clause 3 of the wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that, in consequence of certain events which happened during the lifetime of Alangarammal, the moiety in question passed to Duraisani, and through her to her daughter the defendant, and accordingly that the plaintiffs have no right thereto. These events must now be stated. 6. On October 10, 1895, Rajammal and Alangarammal, who were then the registered owners of the two moieties of the mitta, presented a petition to the collector, whereby, after reciting that they had, on October 8, 1895, given away the two villages constituting the mitta as stridhanam to Duraisani, alias Alamelu, they prayed that orders might be passed for transferring the villages into her name. The petition concluded: "The said Alamelu Ammal shall hold and enjoy them ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d gift, Duraisani, who until then had lived with her husband in Madras, came to live with her mother and her aunt, Alangarammal, in the neighbourhood of the mitta, and thenceforward spent the greater part of the year with them. From the same date all pattas were granted and muchilikas taken in the name of Duraisani alone; and the property was managed by agents appointed by her, who accounted to her for the rents. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that, assuming Duraisani to have been in actual possession of the land, she held such possession, not in her own right, but as trustee or manager only for her mother and aunt, and accordingly that her possession was not such adverse possession as to give a title under the Indian Limitati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Judge that these words amounted to a devise of the two villages to Duraisani, and accordingly that they afforded evidence that in the view of the testatrix no beneficial gift had been previously made to her, but the High Court held that there was in fact no devise of the villages. In the absence of the original text of the will, which was no doubt seen by the judges in India, their Lordships are unable to say which construction is correct. But even if the devise included the testatrix' interest in the two villages, it would appear to be reasonably clear that the gift was by way of confirmation only and affords no evidence that Duraisani was a trustee of the property. In any case the recitals contained in the will are strong evidence of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ession to her moiety of the mitta, and accordingly that as from that date possession of the villages must be deemed to have been held by her as part owner and not adversely. This contention was founded upon the English rule of law, which was abrogated by the statute 3 & 4 Will. 4, Clause 27, Section 12, that the possession of one of several coparceners, joint tenants or tenants in common, is the possession of the others so as to prevent the Statutes of Limitation from affecting them. Whether this rule is applicable to sharers in an unpartitioned agricultural village in India not holding their shares as members of a joint family, it is unnecessary for the purposes of the present case to decide; for upon the facts of the case the rule has no ....