LAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. ALLAUDDIN SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in A. S. No. 55 of 1957, which was in appeal from the decision of the District Munsif, Madurai taluk at Madurai in O. S. No. 244 of 1955.

(2.) THE facts of the case so far as they are necessary for the consideration of the points in issue in this second appeal are the following.

(3.) THE suit property is 54 cents of nanja land. It originally belonged to one subbiah Pillai. Subbiah Pillai executed a will, Ex. A-1 dated 5-8-1931 and died son afterwards. He left behind his widow, Lakshmi Ammal, and two daughters amirthammal and Ammakutti alias Vadamalai Ammal. The will purported to deal with the suit property (item 1) and another item of property (item 2 ). It gives these two properties to the widow with absolute rights and also provided that after her lifetime item 1 (suit property) should go to Amirthammal and item 2 should go to Ammakutti. Amirthammal was married to Muthuswami Pillai, the 4th respondent and they had a son Muthukamakshia Pillai, the 5th defendant, and a daughter 6th defendant Ammakutti is the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff obtained item 1 under a sale deed (Ex. A3/20-10-1952) executed by the 4th defendant, the husband of Amirthammal on behalf of his minor daughter, nacharammal. It may be mentioned at this stage, that the widow, Lakshmi ammal, died in 1948 and Amirthammal predeceased her, she having died in 1941. Defendants 4 and 5 subsequently executed some documents by way of mortgage and sale in favour of defendants 2 and 3. There is also some more history of alienations showing that the parties dealt with the properties in a somewhat haphazard manner. For example, the 4th defendant, as guardian of the fifth defendant executed a mortgage in respect of the suit property to the 3rd defendant who sub-mortgaged it to the 2nd defendant. Subsequently the 3rd defendant executed a sale deed of the said property asserting title as against amirthammal in favour of the first defendant. The second defendant who is a cowife (the first wife being the first defendant) of one Pambal Asari had also taken a sale deed from defendants 4 and 5 admitting title in Amirthammal. It is unnecessary to go into these alienations because the point in controversy has reduced itself to a shore one namely to determine whether the will of Subbiah pillai granted an absolute estate to Lakshmi Ammal, or only a limited estate with a vested remainder in the two daughters.