NAGARAJAN Vs. ANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed by defendants 4 to 7 in O.S.No.1140 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif of Thirupattur, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Thiruvannama-lai in A.S.No84 of 1975.

(2.) THE facts of the case are briefly as follows: One Rajammal, the mother of Annammal the respondent herein filed the suit, O.S.No.1140 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif of Thirup-pattur for declaration of her title to the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with her possession of the suit properties. According to the plaint averments, Rajammal got the properties from her husband Kuppa Gounder by means of two sale deeds marked as ExA4 in respect of items 1 to 4 dated 12.8.1933 and ExA5 in respect of items 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule dt.30.6.34 such, that she had been in absolute possession and enjoyments that of the same and the defendants have no manner of right to interfere with her possession of the suit properties. Pending suit, Rajammal died leaving a will ExA19 dated 21.4.1971 bequeathing the properties in favour of her daughter Annammal who is the sole respondent in this appeal.

(3.) THE Court which originally tried the suit, on a consideration of the evidence let in, came to the conclusion that ExsA4 and A5 sale deeds are valid and true, by which Rajammal got valid title and as such,the other heirs of Kuppa Gounder are not entitled to any right in respect of the suit properties. This appellants herein in the course of the trial of the suit produced a settlement deed purported to have been executed by late Kuppa Gounder on 25-10-25 a registration copy of which is marked as Ex.Bl conferring a life estate to Rajammal and after her lifetime, giving the property to the heirs of Kuppa Gounder. By means of Ex.B2 dated 27.5.60 long after the sale deeds Exs A4 and A5 Kuppa Gounder, executed a deed of cancellation of the settlement deed Ex.B1. THE Trial Court while considering these documents Exs.B1 and B2 observed that after a lapse of 40 years after the sale deeds Exs.A4 and A5, the appellants cannot claim any right under Ex.B1.