THIMMI CHETTY Vs. GOUNDAN ALIAS MUNIAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who was not successful in O.S. No. 20 of 1968 on the file of the District Judge of Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, is the appellant. The suit scheduled property belonged to one Thathi Chetti and his permanently kept concubine Muniamma, they having purchased this property under Ex. B -1 dated 25th June 1930. It is common ground that Muniamma, by such purchase, secured an absolute interest over one half of the property. The said half is not in question in this appeal; nor was it challenged in the Court below. The subject matter of this appeal, therefore, relates to the one half interest which Thathi Chetti had over the suit property by virtue of the purchase as above. Under Ex. A -1 dated 8th October 1931 Thathi Chetti executed a settlement deed in and by which he disposed of his one half interest, which we shall hereafter refer to as the interest of Thathi Chetti, and the terms of such settlement are the subject matter of this appeal, as well as in the Court below. We shall presently refer to the recitals in Ex. A -1, as the controversy revolves upon the interpretation of the recitals therein. To continue the narrative, after such a settlement, both Thathi Chetti and Muniamma sold their interest in the property under Ex. B -4 dated 30th November 1934 to the first defendant, who was the son of the concubine. The plaintiff's case is that under Ex. A -1 and in accordance with the recitals therein, Thathi Chetti provided only a life interest in favour of Muniamma, thereafter reserved a life interest in himself and the ultimate remainder was to go to his two sons, namely, the plaintiff and another son. No one on behalf of the other son is interested in this litigation. But the plaintiff's case is that as per the recitals of Ex A -1, the ultimate remainder in the interest of Thathi Chetti reverted to him and his brother after the death of Muniamma in 1967 and that, therefore, the claim of the first defendant as absolute owner of the entirety of the property (he having secured the other half from his mother) is untenable and hence he was entitled to a decree for partition of the A schedule property and for separate possession of his half share therein, as the ultimate remainderman of the estate of his father. This was resisted by the first defendant on the ground that the recitals in Ex. A -1 are clear and even if liberal interpretation has to be given to the recitals in Ex. A -1, on an overall reading of it, it is clear that after the life time of his mother Muniamma, Thathi Chetti, her paramour, was the immediate remainderman and he having joined his mother under Ex. B -4 to sell the one half share in the property, nothing more remained for the plaintiff to succeed to the estate of Thathi Chetti in so far as the plaint property is concerned. The lower Court framed the following issues on the above material pleadings.

(2.) AS the ratio which has to be rendered in this decision entirely depends upon the interpretation of the document in question, we would extract Ex. A -1 for purposes of immediate reference so as to appreciate the correctness of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant: