KALIAMMAL Vs. ANDIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellants for a declaration that the sale deed dated 19-9-1957 executed by the first respondent herein in favour of the second respondent was not valid and binding on them (appellants ).

(2.) THE appellants are the reversioners of deceased Kaliappa Goundar. The deceased was the husband of the first defendant. He died leaving behind his widow, the first defendant (first respondent), his only daughter, Valliammal, his mother, step-mother, his sister and his sister's son. The sister and sister's son are the appellants (plaintiffs ). The deceased Kaliappa Gounder gave directions to his wife Andiammal to divide his properties and in pursuance of such direction came into existence a partition arrangement Ex. A. 1 in and by which the plaint A schedule properties were allotted to the first defendant and her daughter. In the partition deed, it was stated that the first defendant would get only a life estate, that is, she was to enjoy the properties during her lifetime without any power of alienation and after her death, it was to go to her daughter minor Valiammal. After the death of Kaliappa, the first defendant entered into possession of the A schedule properties. Subsequently, her minor daughter, Valliammal, died unmarried. Subsequently, on 18-9-1957, the first defendant executed a registered deed of surrender in her own favour referring to the death of her minor daughter and asserting her absolute ownership of the properties. The very next day, the first defendant, that is the widow of Kaliappa, executed a sale deed, which is the subject-matter of discussion in this appeal, to the second defendant (second respondent) for Rs. 20000. It is this sale deed which the reversioners appellants are attacking as not valid and binding on them.

(3.) THE defence was that the suit was vexatious and unsustainable at law, that, as per the registered partition deed, Ex. A. 1, Valliammal had a vested remainder without any restriction, that on Valliammal's death as unmarried minor, the vested remainder immediately vested in the first defendant as heir of Valliammal, that after the death of her unmarried daughter, she became the full owner of the properties, since she inherited the estate of her minor daughter, though she was given only a life estate in the partition deed. Nevertheless, she executed the surrender deed thereby declaring her intention that she had become the absolute owner of the properties, as heir of Valliammal. The second defendant adopted the written statement of the first defendant and further added that he was a bona fide purchaser for cash consideration of Rs. 20000 and also in possession of the suit properties, and that the plaintiffs had no manner of right or title in them.