SUSEELA Vs. MAHALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments advanced by Mr.V.Anand, learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) THE legal representatives of the first defendant in the original suit are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiff in the original suit figures as the first respondent. The other respondents are Defendants 2 to 6 in the Original Suit. The suit was filed by the first respondent Mahalakshmi Ammal for declaring her to be the absolute owner of the suit properties and for a consequential perpetual injunction not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Agotharam Pillai, had been arrayed as the first defendant. Respondents 2 to 6 in the second appeal had been arrayed as Defendants 2 to 6 in the Original suit. Respondents 2 to 6/Defendants 2 to 6 did not contest the suit and they remained ex parte. Agotharam Pillai, the first defendant, alone contested the suit by fling a written statement and also an additional written statement.

(3.) AS pointed out supra, Respondents 2 to 6 (Defendants 2 to 6) did not contest the suit and they remained ex parte. The only contesting defendant was Agotharam Pillai, the first defendant. In the written statement filed by him, he had simply contended that the vendor of the plaintiff, namely Kalyani Ammal had been granted only a life estate and she had not been provided with a right to alienate the property or create encumbrance in respect of the properties given to her under the registered deed of maintenance. What the first defendant had contended was that after the execution of the maintenance deed in favour of Kalyani Ammal, Kuttiyappa Konar executed a registered Will on 03.10.1934 giving life estate in respect of the suit properties to his wife Amirthammal and two other persons, namely Aachikannu and Chellammal and that the Will provided for the passing of absolute title to the legal heirs of Navammal, daughter of the above said Chellammal. It is the further case of the first defendant that after the death of Kuttiyappa Konar, the said will came into force and Amirthammal, wife of Kuttiyappa Konar, executed a registered Will on 30.11.1944 in respect of the suit properties in favour of the above said Aachikannu and Chellammal giving them right to enjoy the properties for life with a further direction that the son of Navammal, the first defendant would get the properties on the demise of Aachikannu and Chellammal. By making such averment, the first defendant had contended that because of the said arrangement, the life estate of Kalyani Ammal given to her under Ex.A2 would not get enlarged into an absolute estate. Besides the above said averments, the first defendant had also contended that the sale deeds allegedly executed by Kalyani Ammal in favour of the plaintiff were not supported by consideration and they were sham and nominal. It was also the contention of the first defendant that Kalyani Ammal, who had only a limited right and did not have absolute title, could not have conveyed a valid title to the plaintiff. Incidentally, the first defendant had also denied the plea of the first respondent/plaintiff that she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the defendants were attempting to trespass into the same.