SUBBIAH CHETTI Vs. VEERAJINNU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 3034 of 1966 in the City Civil Court, Madras. The plaintiffs are the daughters of one Mariammal who is herself a daughter of one Veerammal. Veerammal died leaving certain properties. These properties were inherited by Mariammal as her heir. Mariammal died in 1936 leaving behind her husband Govinda Chetti and her daughters the first two plaintiffs and one Jagannatha Ammal. Jagannatha Ammal died in 1950 leaving behind her husband Subbiah Chetti, the defendant in the suit and a daughter Sargunavalli. Sargunavalli died in or about 1966. The plaintiffs claimed that on the death of Jagannatha Ammal in the year 1950, they had become entitled to the properties left by Mariammal and, therefore, they sought to recover possession from Jagannatha Ammal's husband Subbiah Chetti who was in enjoyment of the said properties. The defendant Subbiah Chetti contended that the properties under consideration were the properties of one Govinda Chetti, the husband of Mariammal and that the said properties had been divided between him and his sons by a registered deed of partition dated 27-6-1963 in which these two items fell to the share of Govinda Chetti. Govinda Chetti is said to have made a settlement of the said properties by a registered document dated 3-7-1963, under which the suit property was given to the first plaintiff and the defendant's daughter, since deceased, to be taken by them absolutely in equal shares. The defendant claimed that he was in possession of the suit property in his own right.

(2.) The trial Court held that the suit property belonged to Veerammal and that the plaintiffs became entitled to the suit property after the death of Jagannatha Subbiah Chetti vs. Veerajinnu Ammal and Ors. (24.01.1978 -MADHC) Page 2 of 4 Ammal. It was also held that the deed of settlement executed by Govinda Chetti was not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and that Govinda Chetti had not acquired any interest in the property by adverse possession. The result was that the suit was decreed as prayed for. The defendant is now in appeal.

(3.) The first submission urged on behalf of the appellant is that on the death of Mariammal, her three daughters became the heirs, that on the death of Jagannatha Ammal, one of the three daughters, her share devolved on her daughter Sargunavalli on whose death the defendant himself became entitled to her share. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, claimed that he was one of the three co-owners of the suit property and that there could be no adverse possession as against him. As he continued to be a co-owner of the suit property, his one-third share in the suit property has to be recognised. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the heirs of Mariammal were her daughters who took the properties jointly and on the death of Jagannatha Ammal, there was aright of a survivorship available in favour of the plaintiffs so that the defendant had absolutely no right over those properties.