MARIUS LOUIS PERIA Vs. SANTO RANE CHARLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in the suit O.S. 677 of 1976 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in A.S. 51 of 1982.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: THE respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit O.S. 677 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Pondicherry, for cancellation of the settlement deed Ex.A-1 in view of the non-performance of the condition imposed in the said settlement deed and for recovery of possession. Originally, the suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by RES JUDICATA in view of the dismissal of the earlier suit O.S. 284 of 1972. THEreupon an appeal was preferred in the District Court in A.S. 4 of 1978 and the First Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, remanded the matter to the lower Court for disposal on other issues. C.M.A. 495 of 1978 was preferred to the High Court and the same was dismissed confirming the order of the first Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. THE Principal District Munsif considered the matter on merits and decreed the suit. As against the said decree and judgment, the appellant defendant filed A.S.51 of 1982 and the said appeal was dismissed. This second appeal is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the second Additional District Judge, in A.S.51 of 1982.

(3.) THE only contention of Mr.T.R. Rajagopalan, learned advocate for the appellant, is that the term of the settlement deed imposing a condition that the appellant should maintain the respondent will amount to only a pious wish on the part of the settlor, the respondent herein, and that the failure to comply with the same will not entitle the respondent to have the settlement deed cancelled. Sec.126 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the suspension or revocation of a gift and the same is as follows: