KASTURI Vs. RAJASEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in a suit OS.No.368 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, are the appellants. The sole respondent is the plaintiff in a suit OS.No.342 of 1995 on the file of the very same Court. Both the suits were presented for declaration of title and for injunction. The short narration of the facts essential for these appeals are:-

(2.) The property originally belonged to two brothers namely, Dhanancheiya Naidu and Sampath Naidu. Subadrammal, the 1st defendant in the suit OS.No.368 of 1995 was their sister. Out of natural love and affection, the brothers settled the property in favour of the sister by way of a registered settlement deed in Document Number 2956 of 1968 dtd. 30/7/1968. As per the first part of this document, the settlee/sister was entitled to enjoy the property absolutely and the subsequent clause read that she is entitled to hold the property during her life time and in case there are no issues, it will go back to the legal heirs of Dhanancheiya Naidu.

(3.) The said Subadrammal sold the property in favour of the respondent/Rajasekar on 22/2/1991. It is the case of Rajasekar that the defendants/appellants Kasturi, Sridar and Giri sought to dispossess him on 19/4/1995. Therefore, he presented the suit OS.No.342 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam. The appellants in both the appeals pleaded that what had been settled in favour of the 1st defendant in OS.No.368 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam was only a life estate and therefore Subadrammal is not entitled to sell the property to Rajasekar. They further alleged that the 2nd defendant sought to trespass into the suit property and therefore they came forward with the aforesaid suit.