KRISHNAN KUMARAN Vs. MATHEW J MATTOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendants in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of property with mesne profits.

(2.) The property scheduled to the plaint originally belonged to Unti Raman. Under Ext. I partition arrangement of 1084 in regard to the plaint and other properties, between Raman, his brother Krishnan and their two sisters, Raman did not take any share for himself and was content with a provision for contribution of certain amount every month by two of the allottees. But at the same time the suit property was allotted to Ramans wife Cheeru for her enjoyment for life and thereafter to be taken by her four brothers specifically named. Cheeru died in Kumbhom 1124. But even during her lifetime herself along with Raman gave away the property to the defendants, sons of Krishnan by Ext. A deed of assignment dated 16.10.1088. The plaintiff obtained sale of the property from Cheerus brothers and their legal representatives in 1951 under Exts. J, K and L. According to the plaintiff Ext. A assignment deed executed by Raman and Cheeru was wanting in authority and did not affect the interest of Cheerus brothers in the property under Ext. I and therefore the plaintiffs title derived from them. The suit was therefore laid on 11.2.1952 as above said for declaration of title and recovery of the property with mesne profits.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit mainly on the footing that Ext. I partition of 1084 had been executed merely to shield the properties from the creditors of Raman and did not come into operation and therefore Ext. A assignment deed to which Raman also was party effectively conveyed the title in the property to the defendants. Alternatively and assuming Ext. I was operative, Cheeru obtained not a mere life-interest but the absolute title in the property under and by virtue of Ext. I terms and Ext. A in which she had joined was still valid and effective. In any view, the plaintiff could not maintain the suit on title.