SYED SULAIMAN SAHIB Vs. KADER IBRAHIM MEERAL BIVI
LAWS(MAD)-1952-2-35
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on February 29,1952

Syed Sulaiman Sahib Appellant
VERSUS
Kader Ibrahim Meeral Bivi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

CHANDRA REDDI, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. His suit for partition of his father's estate and for possession of 98 -616 share in those properties with past and future mesne profits was dismissed by the District Munsif of Tenkasi, which was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge of Tinevelly.
(2.) PLAINTIFF and defendants 1 to 7 are the children of one Sehu Mian Tharaganar by his three wives. On 9 -7 -1934, Sehu Mian executed Ex. D. 1, a gift deed in which he made various dispositions, the construction of which is one of the tasks in this appeal. He died in April 1941. Prior to his death, the plaintiff, who was one of the donees under the deed sold a portion of the properties under Ex. D. 2 for a sum of Rs. 200. In 1943, i.e., on 10 -3 -1943 the plaintiff alienated the other properties which were gifted to him under Ex. D. 1 for a sum of Rs. 2235, the sale deed being Ex. D. 3. Having sold away the properties which he got under the gift deed, he filed the suit, which has given rise to the present appeal, for the reliefs mentioned above. While the 2nd defendant supported the plaintiff the other defendants contested the suit. The defences to the suit were 1. That the gift deed was a valid one. 2. That even if it were not valid as a gift, it amounted to a family settlement, and 3 That the plaintiff was estopped from questioning the validity of the settlement deed. The trial court answered the issues relating to the family settlement and estoppel in favour of the detendants and against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the District Judge agreed with the trial court on the issue as to estoppel and in that view thought it unnecessary to consider whether the dispositions under Ex. D. 1 could amount to a family settlement or not. In the result, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
(3.) THE plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the decision of the District Judge has preferred the second appeal. In support of the appeal, various contentions were put forward by Mr. Ramachandra Aiyer.;


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