SIVAGNANA THEVAR Vs. UDAYAR THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who failed in both the courts below has appealed to this court. He brought the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint first schedule properties from the defendant with future mesne profits. The properties originally belonged to one Pooli Sivasuhramania Thevar of Nelkattumsevel. On 8 -9 -1923, he executed a deed of settlement whereby he gave a life interest in the suit properties to Sivagnanathammal whom lie proposed at the time and later on married as his second wife, the remainder to his sons, if any, to be born to her, failing which to his son by his first wife by name Pooli Sivagnanapandian and his heirs. Sivagnanathammal died in 1950 issueless and her husband Pooli Sivasubramania Thevar had predeceased her. The plaintiff purchased the property under a sale deed dated 2 -5 -1952 from Vellathurai Pandian the son of Pooli Sivagnanapandian. The plaintiffs case was that after the termination of the life estate on the death of Sivagnanathammal, Vellathurai's father and after him, Vellathurai, became entitled to the suit properties absolutely and that he was entitled to recover possession thereof from the defendant.

(2.) THE defendant's case on the other hand was that he got an othi of the plaint second schedule property forming part of the first schedule properties executed by Pooli Sivasubramania Thevar on 9 -7 -1925, that at the execution of a rent decree obtained against Pooli Sivasubramania in respect of the suit properties, the defendant purchased them under a sale certificate dated 20 -10 -1934, that right from 1925 he has been in continuous possession of the second schedule and from 1934 the entire suit properties, that the settlement deed relied on by the plaintiff was invalid because it was gift of joint family properties in the hands of Pooli Sivasubramania Thevar in favour of a stranger and was in any case not acted upon by the settlor and his son and that the defendant also had acquired title to the suit properties by adverse possession.

(3.) BEFORE me, Sri S.V. Venugopalachari, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended (1) that the finding of the lower courts that the properties covered by the settlement were coparcenery properties, was not supported by any evidence, (2) that even if the properties covered by the settlement deed were joint family properties, the gift thereof by Pooli Sivasubramania Thevar being of a reasonable portion of the joint family properties to his second wife in anticipation of her marriage, was valid under the Hindu law and (3) that the plaintiff himself could recover possession of the suit properties only after 1950 when the life estate in favour of Sivagnanathammal came to an end.