S CHENCHULAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. A SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a petition filed to execute a decree of the madras City Civil Court. The decree-holder is the appellant. The decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the District Munsif of Sholinghur. The plaintiff was the wife of the first defendant and she had obtained a decree for maintenance prior to the suit and for future maintenance at the rate of Rupees 200/- per month against her husband. The second defendant in the suit was her mother-in-law and she was directed, along with her son, the first defendant, to return the jewels of the Plaintiff. The execution petition sought only recovery of the past maintenance and arrears of maintenance subsequent to the suit, and the cost of the suit, in all amounting to a little over Rs. 12,500/ -. Execution was sought by attachment and sale of the interest of the two defendants in the suit properties. Though three items were initially mentioned, execution was sought only of the first item, which is a house in Arkonam Town.

(2.) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of both the judgment-debtors. So far as the second defendant was concerned, it was pointed out that she was not liable to pay the maintenance portion of the decree in respect of which alone execution was sought. It was further pleaded that under a settlement deed dated 25-11-1940 neither respondent had any power of alienation over the properties, and that they were given only a life interest each in the properties. Further, the first Respondent had been given only a half share in the properties under the said document.

(3.) TO appreciate these contentions in the counter, it is necessary straightway to make a reference to the terms of the settlement deed under which alone the respondent derived some interest. A registration copy of the settlement deed has been marked as Ex. B-1. The Arkonam house is one of the items in the settlement deed, it being, in fact, Item 1 in the A Schedule thereto, valued at Rs. 11,000/ -. It mentions the door Nos. 47, 48 and 49, which are repeated in the present execution petition. The boundaries also are mentioned. There is no doubt about the identity of the property. Kuppuswami Mudaliar, the settlor, was the paternal grandfather of the first respondent and the father-in-law of the second respondent ponnammal, the father of the first respondent, Appasamy Mudaliar being dead at the time of the settlement. The settlement deed recites inter alia the fact that appasamy Mudaliar died leaving two minor sons, Paramasivam aged 10 and subramaniam aged 7 (first respondent herein ). The properties were the self-acquired properties of the settlor. Ponnammal is mentioned as settlee No. 1, paramasivam as settlee No. 2 and Subramaniam as settlee No. 3. So far as the A schedule properties are concerned, it recites that they are settled for the maintenance of the minors, settlees Nos. 2 and 3, and for that purpose they had been handed over to No. 1, Ponnammal. She was to utilise only the income of the properties for the maintenance and education of the children, maintaining proper accounts, and she had no power of alienation. After the minors attained majority, she should hand over the properties to them and they, in their turn, had no power of alienation and were entitled only to enjoy the income therefrom and after them their issues should enjoy the properties with absolute powers of alienation. The relevant portion is, [original in Tamil omitted. Ed. ]