SARASWATHI Vs. DEVAKI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by defendants 2 and 3. Short facts plaintiff is the only daughter of one Ramadas. Ramadas is the son of Velu. Velu gifted the suit properties by executing Ext. A1 gift deed. Plainly the gift was intended to benefit the son, Ramadas and his children to be born. Ramadas executed a sale deed Ext. A2 in favour of his sister. She was the first defendant in the suit. Pending the suit, the first defendant died. Her legal representatives are defendants 2 and 3. Plaintiff filed the suit for setting aside Ext. A2 sale deed and recovery of one half of the plaint schedule property.

(2.) THE defendants contend that the sale deed is valid even though it has been executed by Ramadas alone. THEir case is that the gift in favour of children to be born to Ramadas has not taken effect since it was inoperative and invalid in view of the prohibitions contained in S. 13 of the transfer of Property Act.

(3.) AN important and interesting question of law relating to the true scope ambit and the area of application of S. 13 and 20 of the transfer of Property Act arises for consideration in this case. I should like to say at once that the case was extremely well argued by counsel on both sides and I am very much obliged for their help.