KANNAMMAL, Vs. RAJESWARI AND JAGANNATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants case is that Sec. 10 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply to Ex -A1, the settlement deed which decides the parties' rights while according to the respondent Sec. 14 of the Act will apply. There was one Swami Naidu. He gave a life interest in his properties to his son -in -law Munusamy Naidu, under a deed of settlement dated 02 -04 -1932, which is also registered. The recitals of this document are crucial. Munusamy Naidu died leaving behind him surviving two daughters, three sons and the widow and three sons of the pre -deceased son. One of the daughters is one Dadhabai Ammal. Her sister, brothers and legal representatives of the other brother released their rights in the property by a registered release deed dated 31 -05 -1959 (Ex -A2). So whatever rights they might have had vested in Dadhabai Ammal. She had two sons and a daughter The daughter and her husband are the respondents herein. Dadhabai Ammal and her two sons sold the property to one Sundaram Chettiar. The appellants herein are his legal representatives represented by Power Agent. Sundaram Chettiar filed O.S.NO.7642 of 1983 for declaration and recovery of possession against the respondents. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the settlement deed dated 02 -04 -1932, Ex -A1 is hit by the principles of Sec. 14 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit. According to him, under the settlement deed Munusamy Naidu alone was given a life interest and his children were to take the property absolutely. Therefore, their rights of alienation cannot be restrained and if such a clause was there it was void as per Sec. 10 of the Transfer of Property Act. He would submit that as per Ex -A2, releasors gave Dadha bai Ammal their absolute share in the property. After that she became solely and absolutely entitled to the suit property with full powers of alienation and she had settled the property to her two sons under Ex -A3 dated 31 -05 -1979. She also executed the sale deed Ex -A4 alongwith her sons to the appellants herein. According to the learned counsel there was no justification to hold that the rule against perpetuity would hit Ex -A1. He relied on Ramkishore Lal Vs. Kamal Narain : 1963 Supp.2 SCR 417 and Radha Sundar Dutta Vs .

(3.) Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that it is not possible for the appellants to take the benefit of one clause and ignore the other and while the reasoning of the Trial Court may not be entirely satisfactory the conclusion is not erroneous. He would submit that g[j;jpu gt[j;jpu ghuk;ghpakha; mDgtpj;J tu ntz;oaJ will only mean successive life estates in perpetuity. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the very fact that the word rh;t Rje;jpukha;; is not found, shows that absolute estate is not given to the heirs of Munusamy Naidu. Therefore, the judgment of the Lower Court is perfectly needs no interference.