SRIMATHI UNNAMALAI AMMAL AND ANR. Vs. SRI VELLAYA PILLAI ALIAS KALIA PILLAI
LAWS(MAD)-1970-6-7
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on June 26,1970

Srimathi Unnamalai Ammal Appellant
VERSUS
Sri Vellaya Pillai Alias Kalia Pillai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.R.Gokulakrishnan, J. - (1.) THE defendants are the appellants herein.
(2.) THE suit was for a declaration that the first defendant (first appellant herein) is entitled to enjoy the suit properties only till her lifetime and that the othi deed dated 14th September, 1961, executed by her in favour of the second defendant (second appellant herein) is not binding on the plaintiff (respondent herein). The plaintiff's case was that the suit properties originally belonged to one Kalia Pillai, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff. Kalia Pillai had three sons : the plaintiff's father Vaiyapuri, the first defendant's husband Palaniappa, and another, Muthappa Pillai. After the father's death, the three sons divided the family properties and each enjoyed his separate share thereof. Muthappa Pillai and his wife died leaving no issues. The plaintiff was in enjoyment of Muthappa Pillai's properties. The first defendant's husband Palaniappa died thirty -two years ago leaving no issues. The first defendant was in enjoyment of her husband's properties. While so, she alienated one of the items belonging to her husband to one Arunachalam Pillai. The plaintiff's father Vaiyapuri objected to the sale and the dispute was referred to a caste panchayat on 28th March, 1930. As per the terms of the award given by the panchayat, the first defendant agreed to enjoy the properties for her lifetime without any power of alienation. The plaintiff's father undertook to pay the first defendant's debts. The vendee Arunachalam Pillai was also directed to reconvey the property sold to him by the first defendant, to the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff's father discharged the debts as per the award. The first defendant is bound by the family arrangement entered into between her and the reversioner. However, as against the arrangement, the first defendant othied the properties for a sum of Rs. 2,000 on 14th September, 1961, in favour of the second defendant nominally. The othi deed is illegal and would not be binding on the plaintiff. With the abovesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed O.S. No, 574 of 1961, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Dindigul. 2 -A. The first defendant, in her written statement, while admitting that she was in enjoyment of her husband's share, would however contend that there was no family arrangement, that the Panchayat alleged was false and no award as alleged by the plaintiff was given. She further contended that she is absolutely entitled to the properties and had only othied the properties to the second defendant for consideration received. The second defendant would also contend that the first defendant borrowed the money from him for family expenses and for installing a pump -set in the suit properties.
(3.) THE trial Court found that the award and the family arrangement are true, valid and binding on the first defendant. On that finding, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. On appeal, the Sub -Court, Dindigul, found that the award is binding upon the appellant and after elaborately discussing both the documentary and oral evidence, confirmed the finding of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the decisions of the Courts below, the defendants have preferred this second appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.