BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 263/1981 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai are the appellants in this appeal. Respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs in that suit while respondents 4 and 5 are the other defendants in the suit. That suit was filed for declaration of title, for recovery of possession, for past mesne profits and for other reliefs. On contest, the learned trial Judge granted a decree declaring the plaintiffs' title and for recovery of possession. He relegated the enquiry into the mesne profits from the date of plaint to a later stage. No decree had been granted for past mesne profits. DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 are therefore before this Court in this appeal. Heard Mr. AR.L Sundaresan learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. T. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for R1 to R3.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs in short is as follows: One Raman Chettiar @ Ramasamy Chettiar was owning the suit property. He executed a settlement deed dated 09.04.26. His wife is Sankarammal and his foster daughter is Subbammal. THE settlement deed provides for a life interest in favour of the settlor ad his wife and after their lifetime, the vested remainder on their adopted daughter Subbammal. THEre is another registered deed of settlement dated 29.05.31 executed by Raman Chettiar Ramasamy Chettiar and Subbammal. Both the documents relate to the suit property. Under the latter settlement deed a life estate was created in favour of Gomathiammal (daughter of Subbammal) and after her death, the property should go to the children of Veerabadran, who is the brother of Gomathiammal. THE plaintiffs are the heirs of said Veerabadran while defendants 1 and 2 claim under Gomathiammal. Gomathiammal died on I 17.02.80 and therefore on that day I succession for the plaintiffs opened as per the settlement deed dated 29.05.31. Defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Gomathiammal. Defendants 3 and 4 are in possession of the property claiming some interest under Gomathiammal. As Gomathiammal herself was a mere life estate holder under the settlement deed dated 29.05.31, all her subsisting rights in the suit property came to an end on her death on 17.02.80. THErefore, the defendants cannot have any interest in the suit property at all, Hence, the suit.

(3.) THE following judgments are brought to my notice by Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan learned counsel for the appellants in support of his case. (a) A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1944 = 90 L.W. 89 S.N. (V. Tulasamma v. V. Sesha Reddi) (b) 1996 (5) S.C.C. 458 (Laxmappa v. Balawa Kom Tirkappachavdi) Mr. T. Srinivasa Raghavan learned counsel appearing for R1 to R3 brought to my notice a judgment reported in 2000 (6) S.C.C. 310 = 2000 3 L.W. 336 (Balwant Kaur v. Chanan Singh).