DIRAVIYAM PILLAI Vs. KAMALAM ANIMAL ALIAS DEIVANAI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who lost his case in the trial court is the appellant. His suit declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of the suit properties and for profits has been dismissed.

(2.) THE eight items of suit properties originally belonged to one Piramanayagam Pillai respect of the suit properties he executed a registered settlement deed Ex.A 29.11.1943 in favour of his mother and wife giving them joint life-interest without any of alienation or creating any mortgage or charge and enjoining on them to do certain in his family temple by spending Rs.25 every year out of the profits of the properties. two ladies died during the life-time of Piramanayagam. After their lifetime the properties were to devolve as stated in the settlement deed. It appears Piramanayagam himself exe-cuted sale deeds in favour of the defendants stating in the sale deeds themselves the settle- ment deed executed by him is not valid, and in " pursuance of those sale the defendants are in possession. Piramanayagam had no right to execute such sale. THE plaintiff's paternal grandfather is the brother of the Piramanayagam Pillai's father. He is an agnate of Piramanayagam Pillai. He is the only male relation of Piramanayagam Pillai. As per the settlement deed only he will be entitled to the suit properties. THE deeds executed by Piramanayagam are not valid since he had already under the settlement deed given up his right. THE defendants are trespassers. On these grounds the suit has filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession, and mesne profits.

(3.) ON the above pleadings and on consideration of the evidence the trial court held that settlement deed Ex.A-13, dated 29.11.1943, executed by Piramanayagam Pillai is true valid and acted upon, and a charge has been created for doing Pooja in the temple spending a sum of Rs.25 from the income of the properties. It further held Piramanayagam Pillai had a daughter by name Ponnammal and as per the settlement after the life-time of his mother and wife the said daughter Ponnammal could be entitled the properties and not the plaintiff. He further held that it is true that the plaintiff agnate of Piramanayagam Pillai as stated by him. He also held that in consideration finding that the plaintiff cannot have title to the suit properties, the question whether defendants have perfected title by adverse possession against the plaintiff will not arise. These findings the trial court, in the result, dismissed the suit but without costs. The plaintiff has filed the appeal.