FATIMA Vs. K SARASWATHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but interesting question in these two appeals is about the construction of Ext.A2 settlement. *[ * * *]

(2.) One Walter Rose died on 24-6-1969 leaving behind his widow Mabel, two sons Suresh and Mahesh, and two daughters Hasheela and Jamila. Under the Travancore Christian Succession Act all the. five were entitled to shares in the properties of the deceased, with the difference that the share of the widow would be limited to a life interest, the remainder devolving on the others on her death. Instead of effecting a partition on the above lines, however, Mabel and her children entered into Ext.A2 agreement on 1-9-1969 settling the properties in a different manner. Mabel was not interested in getting her share; the properties were therefore divided into four equal shares, scheduled as A, B, C and D. The Items in B, C and D schedules were set apart absolutely to Mahesh, Hasheela and Jamila respectively. A-schedule allotted to the eldest son Suresh consisted of two items. The first (13 cents) was to be retained by Mabel, with a right to take its income, till the marriage of the youngest daughter Jamila; and after her marriage, Suresh was to step into his mother's shoes with a right to enjoy it during his life-time. The second item (7 cents with a building) was also to be retained by the mother during her lifetime, Suresh getting it only after her death, with a right to take income during his lifetime. He could not encumber or alienate items (1) and (2) at any time, and after his death, they were to devolve successively on his descendants.

(3.) However, between 1972 and 1975, Mabel and Suresh executed a series of documents, including release-deeds, purporting to transfer all their rights in item (2) of the A-schedule in favour of Mahesh. And Mahesh sold those rights to one Saraswathi Amma. Sujit, son of Suresh, thereupon instituted O.S.No.182 of 1975 challenging the validity of the assignments made by his father and grandmother. Disputes arose between him and Saraswathi Amma who, in turn, instituted O.S.No.184 of 1975 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Court below dismissed O.S.No.182 of 1975 and decreed O.S.No.184 of 1975. That is how the two appeals have arisen.