THE CATHOLIC MISSION PRESENTATION CONVENT BY MOTHER SUPERIOR, COIMBATORE, AND ANR. Vs. SUBBANNA GOUNDAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal preferred by defendants 6 and 7 from a decree of the District Judge of Coimbatore affirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of the same place whereby the title of the respondents 1 to 4 to certain Immovable properties was declared, and the appellants were directed to deliver possession of them to the said respondents with mesne profits.

(2.) ONE Nanjappa Goundan was the original owner of the properties, and on his death many years ago his widow Palaniammal inherited the properties and was in enjoyment thereof till the 10th January, 1931, when she died. Thereupon disputes arose regarding succession to the properties of Nanjappa between the fifth respondent, who was the first defendant in the suit who claimed title to be the nearest sapinda and reversioner of Nanjappa on the one hand and defendants 8 and 9 who are the grandsons of Palaniammal's sister and set up title as devisees under her will on the other. The first respondent's father, Palani Goundan, who, it has been found below, and the finding has not been questioned before us, was Nanjappa's step -sister's son and as such his true reversionary heir under the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (II of 1929) as interpreted by the Privy Council (vide Mst. Sahodra v. Ram Babu, (1943) 1 M.L.J. 180 :, L.R. 69 IndAp 145 :, I.L.R. (1943) Kar. did not put forward any claim of succession to Nanjappa when his widow died in 1931. On the other hand, according to the defendants, he took an active part as one of the arbitrators in effecting a settlement of the disputes between the first defendant and defendants 8 and 9. Though Palani Goundan's participation in the settlement has been found against, the disputes between the other claimants appear to have been settled by the defendants 8 and 9 acknowledging the validity of the first defendant's claim to Nanjappa's properties and the first defendant delivering to them, in consideration of such acknowledgment, some of those properties. In pursuance of that settlement the first defendant made statements on the 26th January, 1931, before the Revenue -Inspector of Vaniputhur consenting to patta being transferred in the name of defendants 8 and 9 in respect of the lands given to them as aforesaid.

(3.) VARIOUS pleas were raised in answer to the suit including a plea of estoppel based on the part alleged to have been played by Palani Goundan in bringing about the settlement of 1931 and his subsequent acquiescence in the enjoyment of the properties by the first defendant as the ostensible owner. All the pleas were overruled by the Courts below which upheld the plaintiff's right to the properties claimed, and the suit was accordingly decreed so far as the appellants were concerned, the other defendants having entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled, as bona fide transferees for value from an ostensible owner, to seek the protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.