AHAMED Vs. RUKMANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in 0. S. No. 1484 of 1974, on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant in this second appeal. The first respondent is the Plaintiff and the second respondent is the second defendant in that suit. It is unnecessary to refer to the facts, which have given rise to the litigation, in detail. The Plaintiff wanted a declaration of her title and recovery of possession from the first defendant on the basis of a deed dated 19th July 1954, the original of which has been marked as Ex. B-1. That deed was executed by the father of the Plaintiff, Thandavaraya Pillai. The very same Thandavaraya Pillai, under Ex. B-9 dated 24th September 1966, conveyed the Property to the first defendant. There was an earlier Proceeding for eviction instituted by the first defendant against Thandavarava Pillai before the Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli. and pursuant to the orders obtained therein, possession has been obtained by the first defendant. However the plaintiff took proceedings under Order 21, Rules 100 and 101, C. P. Code. The said Proceedinas terminated on a joint endorsement. I will have occasion to refer to it subsequently while dealing with the second point mooted out for consideration.

(2.) The first Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. However, on appeal, the plaintiff succeeded. Hence the second appeal by the first defendant. Two questions have been formulated for consideration at the tirne of admission of this second appeal and they run as follows - 1. On a true construction of Ex. B-1, whether the plaintiff gets any title to the property; and 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation

(3.) I have been taken through the recitals in, Ex. B-l. The very preface to the deed characterises it as a settlement. There is no ambiguity- that the ulirnate beneficiary is the plaintiff. From a reading of the deed,, it is not possible to spell out that the settlor Thandavwava Fillai reserved any right for himself . Under the deed the settlor has completely divested himself of all his interest to and in favour of the beneficiary only.. If this is. so, the said Thandavaraya Pillai was not competent to execute Ex. B-9, in favour of the first defendant. What was- contended by the first defendant in the Courts below was that the recitals in the, deed indicate that there was no intention, on the part ot the settlor to transfer any right in presenti, but the intentition was to transfer the rights, only after the lifetime of Thandiatwarava, pillai. No such construction is possible in view of the express, recitals in the deed. Rightly, the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff has got title to the suit W11perty an the basis EX, B-1.