TIRUPURASUNDARI AMMAL Vs. KALYANARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant is the appellant. She unsuccessfully resisted the suit filed by the first respondent herein as plaintiff for possession of the suit properties together with past and future mesne profits. The plaintiff's case was that his 1959, in respect of the suit properties in favor of the first defendant nominally in view of the land ceiling legislation, that the said settlement deed was not intended to be acted upon, that as he was born on 2-5-1960, shortly after the settlement deed, he is entitled to avoid the said settlement deed executed by the father, that even otherwise the second defendant had no power to execute a settlement deed in favor of the first defendant in respect of the coparcenary properties and that the first defendant cannot claim any title on the basis of the said settlement deed. It was also his case that the alienation made be the first defendant of some properties in favor of the third defendant cannot also be valid as the first defendant had herself no title to the suit properties, that the first defendant, notwithstanding the fact that she had no legal title to the suit properties, chose to take forcible possession of the properties in or about 1963 and that, therefore, he was constrained to file the present suit for possession.

(2.) THE appellant, first defendant, had contended inter alia that the settlement deed Ex. A-2, came to executed by the second defendant of his own free will and accord, that the settlement deed was real and in fact acted upon, that the took possession of the properties immediately after the settlement deed, that the plaintiff was not born on 2-5-1960 and that the plaintiff cannot challenge the settlement deed on any ground whatever. The first defendant also contended that she had effected improvements to the suit properties to the extent of Rs. 15,000 to the knowledge of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE second defendant filed a written statement supporting the case of his son, the plaintiff.