MOTHER SUPERIOR, ADAIKALAMATHA Vs. P.L.SHANMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the suit are the appellants. The deceased first respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession against the appellants. Pending Second Appeal, the first respondent died and the respondents 2 to 11 were brought on record as his legal representatives. The suit filed by the deceased first respondent was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal filed by the first respondent, the suit was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved the same, the defendants are before this Court.

(2.) According to the 1st respondent, who is the plaintiff, originally the suit property belonged to him. He executed a document dtd. 23/9/1968 gifting the suit property to the first appellant subject to the condition that the first appellant should perform the charity of "Thanneer Panthal" for the benefit of general public and school children who are studying in the school run by the first appellant in the suit property. It was also stated in the plaint that the deceased first respondent and the first appellant herein were entered into an agreement on 23/9/1968, whereunder, it was agreed that the charity mentioned in the gift deed dtd. 23/9/1968 should commence within one year from the date of execution of the document and if the first appellant fails to commence the charity within one year, the property should be retransferred to the deceased first respondent and the first appellant should also pay a sum of Rs.1,000.00 to the first respondent. It was further stated in the plaint that the first appellant commenced the charity and carried out the same for a period of one year and subsequently the first appellant discontinued the charity and sold the suit properties to appellants 2 and 3 on 16/7/1970 under two sale deeds marked as Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2.

(3.) The appellants filed a written statement and had taken a stand that under document dtd. 23/9/1968, the property was gifted to the first appellant and consequently the respondents cannot maintain the suit for recovery of possession. It was further averred by the appellants that the document dtd. 23/9/1968 was an irrevocable gift and hence the first appellant acquired absolute title under the same.