THANGATHAMMAL Vs. PUGALUMPERUMAL PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is in respect of certain property which originally belonged to one Pichaiyammal. She executed a deed of gift on 8th May, 1905, in favour of Veeraperumal Ammal, her daughter, and the decision of this second appeal depends mainly on a construction of the terms of this deed. Veeraperumal "Ammal had three daughters, Badrakali, Pechi Ammal and Thangathammal, the plaintiff. She died in 1940. The plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises for recovery of property included in the deed of gift of 1905 on the ground that under that deed her mother - Veeraperumal Ammal obtained an absolute interest in the properties covered by that deed including the suit property and on her death she was entitled to the property as she happened to be unmarried on the date of the suit while her two sisters were. married. The defendant -respondent is an alienee of the suit property from Pechi Ammal, the plaintiff's sister.

(2.) THE defendant raised several pleas but it is sufficient to mention two of them. He pleaded that under the deed of gift of 1905, Veeraperumal Ammal got only an estate for her life and her daughters were entitled to a remainder after her life. As the daughters were entitled to the properties as donees under the document of 1905, the defendant contended the rule of inheritance relied upon by the plaintiff would not apply and the plaintiff cannot claim to exclude her sisters. Another plea was that there was a family settlement in accordance with which there was an oral gift of the suit property to his vendor Pechi Ammal. The learned District Munsiff of Tuticorin granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. He held that Veeraperumal Ammal took an absolute estate under Ex. 7, the gift deed, executed by her mother and the plaintiff being an unmarried daughter was entitled to the suit property as her stridhana heir. No doubt in recording the finding the learned District Munsiff used the word " absolutely," but I believe what he meant was that the plaintiff took to the exclusion of her two sisters. He would be obviously wrong if he meant to say that the plaintiff was entitled to an absolute estate. The learned District Munsiff refused to believe the story of the family arrangement set up by the defendant.

(3.) THE second appeal filed by the plaintiff against the decision of the Subordinate Judge originally came on for hearing before my learned brother Kuppuswami Aiyar, J., who considered that the appeal could not be disposed of satisfactorily without definite findings on two questions, viz., (I) whether the plaintiff was in possession within 12 years prior to suit? and (2) whether the family settlement pleaded was true and valid ? He therefore called upon the lower appellate Court to submit findings on these two questions. The learned Subordinate Judge has now found that the plea of family arrangement set up by the defendant was not established. On the question of possession he found that the plaintiff was in possession within 12 years before suit. It appears that the learned advocates on both sides agreed that the question of possession was not material for a determination of the case.