PONNUKUTTY Vs. RAMANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O. S. No. 287/1975 of the Munsiff's Court, Palghat is the appellant herein. The defendant in the case is the respondent. The suit was filed for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the plaint property and for injunction and in the alternative for recovery of the plaint property on the strength of title. The suit property is, R. S. No. 54/4A and 51/10, about 10 cents of land. It belonged in kanam right to one Chami, as evidenced by Ext. A4 dated 13-5-1944. Chami had two sons, Arumughan and Poosandi. As per partition in the family evidenced by Ext- Al dated 10-5-1952 the plaint property was set apart for Arumughan. Arumughan had a son by name Andi. The plaintiff is the widow of Andi. By Ext. B1 dated 17-5-1965 Arumughan sold the plaint property to the defendant. Later by Ext. A2 dated 2-12-1966 Andi executed a deed of gift to the plaintiff. The defendant in the suit filed O.S. No. 871/1966 against Andi and prayed for injunction from entering into the property. Andi disputed the sale deed executed by his father Arumughan. The suit was disposed of finally in S.A. 1303/1972 evidenced by Ext. B2. This Court decreed the suit on the basis of the recital in the sale deed Ext. B1, Since it was recited that possession was given, an order of injunction was granted against Andi. The plaintiff is not a party to this said suit. So she has laid the present suit for declaration of title, for injunction and for recovery of possession. The plaintiff also attacked Ext. B1 on the ground that Arumughan was senile and there is no legal necessity to execute Ext. B1. By judgment dated 31st of July, 1966 the Trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal the District Judge found that the sale was not supported by legal necessity and consideration and so half of the property will go to Andi and that such property will enure to the benefit of the plaintiff as per Ext. A2. The lower appellate court observed as follows:-

(2.) The plaintiff has filed the second appeal from the judgments of the courts below. While admitting the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the substantial question of law as follows:-