PITCHAIAMMAL Vs. PAPPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. The appellants filed a suit for declaration that the appellants and the second respondent are entitled to suit property after the life time of the first respondent and for a consequential injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the appellants. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was also dismissed and hence, the appellants are before this Court.

(2.) According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the suit property originally belongs to Ramanatha Thevar. The appellants claimed themselves as children of Ramanatha Thevar through his second wife Irulayee. The first respondent is the first wife of the said Ramanatha Thevar. The second respondent is the daughter of Ramanatha Thevar through his first wife, namely, first respondent. The third respondent is the purchaser of the suit property from the respondents 1 and 2. According to the plaint averments, the said Ramanatha Thevar, at the time of his second marriage with the mother of the appellants, in order to make provision for maintenance of his first wife, namely, first respondent, executed a settlement deed dtd. 5/3/1963 in respect of the suit property giving life estate to the first respondent with vested remainder to the heirs of Ramanatha Thevar and first respondent. It is also averred in the plaint that as per the terms of said settlement deed, the life estate holder, namely, first respondent is not entitled to make any alienation. It is also stated in the plaint that in respect of his other properties, Ramanatha Thevar executed a Will in favour of his second wife, Irulayee, namely, the mother of the appellants. It is a specific claim of the appellants that after the death of the first respondent, as per the terms of settlement deed, the heirs of Ramanatha Thevar and the first respondent were entitled to the suit property. Therefore, it is the case of the appellants that the appellants, namely, the children of Ramanatha Thevar through his second wife and the second respondent, namely, the daughter of Ramanatha Thevar through his first wife are entitled to suit property after the life estate holder, namely, the first respondent.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 filed a written statement and resisted the suit on the grounds that as per the terms of settlement deed executed by Ramanatha Thevar, only the heirs of Ramanatha Thevar and the first respondent were entitled to absolute estate. It was specifically averred that the heirs of Ramanatha Thevar through his second wife, namely, Irulayee were not entitled to any vested remainder under the terms of settlement. It was also specifically averred by the respondents 1 and 2 that after the death of Ramanatha Thevar, the first respondent enjoyed the suit property, namely, the subject matter of the settlement deed, dtd. 5/3/1963, as its absolute owner. It was also averred that the respondents 1 and 2 jointly executed a sale deed in favour of the third respondent on 19/8/1998. On these grounds, the respondents 1 and 2 sought for dismissal of the suit.