TMI Blog1905 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exhibits A and FF. The question is thus limited to the share alleged to have passed to the second defendant under exhibit A, and to the share alleged to have passed to the third defendant under exhibit FF. If the effect of those documents was not to transfer validly to the respective transferees the share intended to be transferred to them, the appeal so far must succeed. Both the documents rotate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r considerations beneficial to the family as a whole including the minor members, the minors are bound. The question therefore is whether the transactions evidenced by exhibits A and FF are valid with reference to the view of the law just stated. In regard to the former document it is found that there was at least one member of the Tavazhi in existence at the time of its execution who did not join ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest taken by persona to whom property was given to be held by them as joint property according to Marumakkatayam Law, exhibit A should be hold to have conferred on the second defendant a right to treat his share given by exhibit A as is separate estate. It is sufficient to state that the deed itself was executed after the Full Bench decision referred to though we should not be understood as imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsisted among others of three persons at the time of its execution who were incapable of assenting to the transaction intended to be effected thereby on the ground of their minority. As in this instance also it is not alleged that any consideration passed from the third defendant to the Tavazhi that could make it an instrument binding upon the branch as a whole, we must for reasons already given h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
