ASHIA UMMAL Vs. VASANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of immovable property with mesne profits. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court, and defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.

(2.) The property which forms the subject matter of the suit comprises of 50 cents obtained by the third defendant under Ext. P. 1 dated 11-4-1956 from her parents, defendants 1 and 2, the first defendant being the mother and the second defendant the father of the third defendant. The remaining 1 1/4 cents were purchased in the name of the third defendant later under Ext. P. 2 dated 9-2-1960. Ext. P. 1 purported to convey 50 cents of land and a building to the third defendant in lieu of streedhanam promised to her at the time of her marriage to the fourth defendant. The whole area was sold to the plaintiff, under Ext. P. 7 dated 22-8-1960. According to the plaintiff, defendants 3 and 4 resided in the suit property for some time after the marriage and thereafter they left for Kayamkulam, the native place of the fourth defendant, entrusting management of the property to defendants 1 and 2. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that after the date of the sale in her favour, she was in possession for six or seven days when she was obstructed from enjoyment of the property by defendants 1 and 2. She therefore filed the suit for declaration of her title and recovery of possession of property.

(3.) The main contentions of defendants 1 & 2 were that the third defendant was promised a streedhanam of Rs. 4,000/- at the time of her marriage, that Ext. P. 1 was executed as security for the fulfilment of the promise and to evidence the same, that the original deed was not handed over to the third defendant, that it was surreptitiously removed by her from the possession of the first defendant, that Ext. P. 1 was not intended to come into effect nor had it come into effect, and that in any event it has to be treated only as a gift pursuant to which possession has not passed. It was further contended that the third defendant and her vendee, the plaintiff, had no right to the property and that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- out of the sthreedhanam promised had been paid to defendants 3 and 4. According to defendants 1 and 2 the building in the property was erected by them after the date of Ext. P. 1.