- (1.) The disputed property was the itself acquisition of one Muthuveera who died some years ago leaving behind him his widow defendant 1 and a daughter, defendant 2. It is alleged that after the death of Muthuveera the first married one Palaniyandi and their son is defendant 3, defendant 4 being the wife- of defendant 3. The plaintiffs are the minor sons of defendant 2 and they are suing for a declaration that the settlement deed, Ex-B. 1, dated 14-4-1937 executed by defendant 3 in favour of defendant 4 is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs after the death of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs are the nearest reversioners to the estate of Muthuveera being his daughter's son and entitled to succeed to the property on the death of defendants 1 and 2.
(2.) The Court of first instance held that Ex. B. 1 will not be binding on the plaintiffs' and also the suit property belongs to the estate of Muthuveera. It further held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the property as presumptive reversioners to the estate of Muthuveera after the death of defendants 1 and 2. The appeal to the lower appellate Court by defendant 3 did not meet with any success and hence the second appeal by defendant 3.
(3.) Mr. G.R. Jagadeesa Iyer for the appellant does not seriously contest the finding of the lower Courts that the property in question was the absolute property of Muthuveera but big main argument is that the suit as framed is not maintainable. A feeble attempt was made to contend that there was no clear finding by the lower appellate Court regarding the remarriage of defendant 1 with Palaniyandi after the death of Muthuveera and if there was really a valid marriage, then the question whether defendant 1 would forfeit her rights to the property should also be considered; but when once the question of the ownership of the property is decided, it is absolutely irrelevant as to whether there was really a valid marriage between Palaniyandi and defendant 1 after the death of Muthuveera. In any event on the finding that the property is at present in the possession of defendant 3 in whom there is no valid title, what has to be decided is whether the suit as framed is maintainable or not.;