REGUPATHY Vs. NAKKIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants herein. THE respondents are the plaintiffs. THE parties are hereinafter referred to as shown in the cause title of the plaint. THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to declare their title to the suit properties. THEre are four items of suit properties situate in the village of Velliakkudi, Chidambaram Taluk. THE suit properties originally belonged to one Murugesan Pillai. His wife is one Sivakami Ammal, Murugesan Pillai executed a deed of settlement on 21.6.1949 in favour of his wife Sivakami Ammal in respect of the suit items. THEre is no dispute that the suit properties were subject-matter of settlement and they are shown as A and B schedule in the settlement deed. THE settlement deed was executed by Murugesan Pillai for the reason that he had to go outside his village often and he was not able to look after them. It is also stated in the deed of settlement that the parents of the settlee viz., Sivakami Ammal insisted that some provision should be made in favour of their daughter since Sivakami Ammal happened to be the wife and since the parents of Sivakami Ammal insisted that some support should be provided for the sertlee, the deed of settlement was executed settling A and B schedule properties in favour of the settlee. Under the terms of the settlement she was given the right to enjoy the properties without power of alienation and she was also required to maintain the settlor and the settlor's mother one Balarnbal Aachi. Balambal Aachi was also given an additional right, to the effect that if she was not satisfied with the maintenance amount provided by the settlee viz., Sivakami Ammal, the settlor's mother can have recourse to the income from the B Schedule property and the terms of the settlement also provided that after the life time of Balambai Aachi Sivakami Ammal, the settlee, can enjoy the properties as stated earlier and after her life time the properties will go to the male children of the settlor and settlee and if there are no male children then it will go to the female children of the settlor and settlee. THE plaintiffs have come forward with the suit stating that the settlement deed was true, valid, accepted and acted upon; that Sivakami Ammal was put in possession of the property and she was enjoying the income from the suit property as per the terms of the settlement deed. According to the plaint averments, she was maintaining the settlor and his mother and there is no dispute that the mother of the settlor also died. THE case of the plaintiffs was that after the life time of Sivakami Ammal the plaintiffs who are the sons of Murugesan Pillai and Sivakami Ammal are entitled to the suit properties absolutely as the settlee Sivakami Ammal was only given the power to enjoy the income from the properties during her life time and she Had no power to alienate the same. THE plaintiffs further averred that Sivakami Ammal alienated the suit items in favour of the defendants and she has sold items 1 and 2 to the first defendant and item 3 to the second defendant, in so far as the fourth item is concerned she has sold the property to one Thangammai and the third defendant had purchased the fourth item in the schedule of the suit properties. According to the plaintiffs the alienations were not true and valid and not supported by consideration. In any event the alienations would not bind the plaintiffs and they are entitled to a decree for declaration of the title to the suit properties in their favour.

(2.) A common written statement has been filed by the defendants and there is no dispute about the settlement deed. The case put forward by the defendants was that the settlement deed was a valid document, it is also slated that the husband of Sivakami Animal, the settlor of the suit properties was aware of the sale transactions and the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff also knew about the sale transactions and participated in the negotiations and they never questioned the right of Sivakami Ammal to sell the properties and the attested the documents of sale. The case of the defendants was that alter the sale of the properties Sivakami Ammal and Murugesan Pillai the parents of the plaintiffs have instigated the plaintiffs to file the suit for declaration. It is not necessary to set out the other defence put forward by the defendants in defend as the case turns upon the interpretation of the terms of the settlement dated 21.6.1949