RANGAMMAL Vs. MARUDAMUTHU MUTHURAJA
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
G.RAMANUJAM, J. -
(1.) THIS second appeal involves an interesting question of law. It arises out of a suit to set aside a summary order directing the defendant to deliver possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. The suit property originally belonged to one Marimuthu and after his death his son Vridhachala inherited the same. Vridhachala died on 11th January, 1949 leaving behind him his widow, Ramayee to enjoy the property as limited owner. On 13th June, 1951 the said Ramayee executed a settlement deed under Exhibit A -6 in favour of her sister's son Marimuthu, husband of the defendant bequeathing the suit property to him. Ramayee died on 12th January, 1959. Thereafter the settlee under Exhibit A -6 also died in April, 1960. The defendant who is the sister's son filed a suit O.S. No. 13 of 1961 claiming the suit property on the basis of the settlement deed, Exhibit A -6 against the plaintiff's wife and got a decree for possession on 12th March, 1962. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property by a sale deed, dated 26th March, 1962 from one Nallamuthu Raja who is said to be the reversioner to the estate of Vridhachala. In pursuance of the decree obtained by the defendant, she sought to take delivery of possession through Court and the plaintiff obstructed delivery of possession on the ground that he had absolute title to the suit property on the basis of his purchase under the said Exhibit A -1 from the reversioner. The defendant filed E.A. No. 195 of 1962 in O.S. No. 13 of 1;961 for removal of obstruction and by an order, dated 18th July, 1962 the Court ordered removal of obstruction. The plaintiff was therefore constrained to file the present suit for declaration of his title and for setting aside the said summary order, resting his case on Exhibit A -1. In the suit the plaintiff contended that Ramayee had no power to execute the settlement deed, Exhibit A -6 that in any event no right can flow to the settlee under that document after Ramayee's death on 12th January, 1959, and that the plaintiff having purchased the suit property under Exhibit A -1 from the reversioner to the estate of Vridhachala he has become entitled to the suit property.
(2.) THE defendant on the other hand, contended that the vendor under Exhibit A -1 is not the reversioner to the deceased Vridhachala, that his sale under Exhibit A -1 in favour of the plaintiff was not valid and binding on the defendant and that her husband had acquired a valid and absolute title to the suit properly under the settlement deed Exhibit A -6. In the face of these rival contentions, the trial Court held that the vendor under Exhibit A -1 was a reversioner to the estate of Vridhachala, but that his sale under Exhibit A -1 in favour of the plaintiff though true was not valid and binding on the defendant and that the settlement deed under Exhibit A -6 in favour of the defendant's husband was valid and conveyed an absolute title to the suit property from Ramayee. In that view the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit and upheld the summary order removing obstruction.
(3.) ON appeal, the lower appellate Court agreed with the view of the trial Court that the vendor Exhibit A -1 was the reversioner to the estate of Vridhachala, but however, held that the settlement deed Exhibit A -6 executed by Ramayee in favour of the defendant's husband is invalid and ineffective for the reason that Ramayee had no right to convey absolute title to the suit property to the settlee, that after the death of Ramayee that suit properly had reverted to her husband's reversioner, Nallamuthu Raja and that the sale in favour of the plaintiff by the said reversioner was valid. Hence the defendant has come to this Court questioning the decision of the lower appellate Court.
The only question that arises in this second appeal is whether the settlement deed Exhibit A -6 by Ramayee conveys absolute title to the defendant's husband.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.