MARUDAMBAL AMMAL AND ORS. Vs. MARUDANAYAGAM PILLAI AND ANR.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Marudambal Ammal And Ors.
Marudanayagam Pillai And Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
A. Vardarajan, J. -
(1.) The plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 879 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kulitalai, who succeeded before the trial Court but lost before the lower appellate Court in the appeal filed by the second defendant -second respondent, are the appellants. The first respondent is the first defendant. The suit was filed against the first respondent, the husband of the first appellant and father of the other minor appellants, and the second respondent for a declaration that the sale of the suit property by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent was not binding on the appellants beyond the life time of the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent was entitled only to a life interest in the property by reason of the terms of the partition deed Exhibit A -2, dated 30th December, 1959 entered into between the first respondent and his two brothers and their father Manickam Pillai. The defence of the second respondent who alone contested the suit was that the first respondent got an absolute right in the property and was entitled to alienate the property to him by the sale deed Exhibit B -l. The second respondent's case was that under the first clause in the partition deed, the first respondent got an absolute estate in the property and that it cannot be curtailed into a mere life interest by the later clause in the document.
(2.) The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the first respondent got only a life estate in the property under the partition deed Exhibit A -2 and that the sale of the property by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent under Exhibit B -l was not valid beyond his lifetime. But, on appeal it was held by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, that the earlier clause in the partition deed gave an absolute estate and that the later clause curtailing it was not valid. In that view, the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge upheld the sale of the property by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent under Exhibit B -l and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
(3.) The only point for consideration is whether the first respondent got an absolute estate or only a life estate in the property under the partition deed Exhibit A -2 and the sale by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent under Exhibit B -l was not valid beyond his life -time.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.