SOOSAI ARULAN AND ORS. Vs. IRUDAYAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. They pleaded that the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff were not entitled to the properties of Maria Soosai, as the first plaintiff even during the lifetime of Maria Soosai left him and was living with one Arokiam of Anandhana Kottai, and the second plaintiff is the daughter of that Arokiam. The defendants also claimed that the first defendant's husband purchased the suit properties othied in favour of Ahmed Seeni Rowther from Arulayee and Maria Soosai by sale deed, dated 22nd July, 1932. The defendants further contended that in any event the defendants had been enjoying the suit properties adversely to the plaintiffs for over the period of limitation, and thereby prescribed title. They also contended that the suit items 3, 7, 11, 24 and 28 never belonged to the plaintiffs and claimed title to items 3, 7, and 11 by purchase.

(2.) THE trial Court found that plaintiffs 1 and 2 were not the heirs of Maria Soosai and, therefore, they were not entitled to file a suit for redemption, that the father of defendants 2 to 6 had purchased the suit properties and redeemed to othi from the fifteenth defendant, that they prescribed title by adverse possession and that items 3, 7, 11, 24 and 28 never belonged to the plaintiffs.

(3.) ON appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram found that the first plaintiff is the widow and the second plaintiff, the daughter of Maria Soosai, that they were entitled to inherit the properties and to redeem the othi, that the alleged sale of the suit properties in favour of the second defendant's father was not true, that the defendants have not prescribed title by adverse possession that items 3, 7 and 11 belonged to the plaintiff and that the defendants could not resist redemption of those items. On these findings the lower appellate Court set aside the decree of the trial Court, allowed the appeal and remanded the suit to the Lower Court directing it to frame an issue whether the mortgage debt was wiped out as per the provisions of the Agriculturists Relief Act and if not for the determination of the amount payable to the defendants, as this issue was not decided by the trial Court during the trial.