MARTHANDAN VELAR SUBRAMANIAN VELAR Vs. RAMASUBRAMANIA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the 7th defendant in the court below in a suit by the plaintiff for declaration of his title to certain properties after setting aside certain alienations, for recovery of those properties with mesne profits and allied reliefs. We are not now concerned with most of the matters in controversy decided in this suit as between the parties. We are concerned exclusively with a mortgage executed by a life estate holder Saradambal (Ex. XIV-Ex B) in favour of the 7th defendant (appellant) for Rs. 1000 on 32-12-1124. M. E.

(2.) THERE are two simple questions for determination in this appeal. The first is this whether this life estate holder (Saradambal) had the power to make this disposal of property inter vivos during her period of enjoyment. The second is whether mortgage itself was supported by consideration, with reference to its constituent items and if so to what extent.

(3.) THE facts are that one Sundararaja Iyer was the father of three daughters of whom Saradambal was one and defendants 2 and 3 were the others. The first defendant in this suit is the husband of Saradambal but that is not a matter that is strictly pertinent to the aspect that arises for decision now. Admittedly, there was a partition deed in the family (EX. A), under which Saradambal took a life estate in the properties of the suit. The learned Additional District Judge has throughout misconceived her status as that of a Hindu woman owning properties in a limited estate under the Hindu law. This led him to launch in to an enquiry concerning the necessity for the mortgage in favour of the seventh defendant (appellant),which really does not arise. The learned Judge stated that: