T I KRISHNA PILLAI Vs. ARUNACHALAM PILLAI (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the plaint, they claimed that one Perumal had two sons, Parimanam Pillai and Ondachia Pillai. Ondachia Pillai had a son Maria Pillai, to whom Thiruvengadam was born, and for the purpose of this appeal, he is called as Thiruvengadam-I. He had two sons and they are the two plaintiffs, Parimanam Pillai had a son known as Thiruvengadam Pillai, called as Thiruvengadam-II, who died in 1923 leaving behind his wife Sivabaghyam, who died on 24.1.1967, leaving behind her daughter Ranganayaki, the second defendant, and her husband Arunachalam, the first defendant. The suit property is old Door No. 8 and new Door No. 21 in Varaganeri, Tiruchirapalli, which was purchased by Ondachia Pillai on 6.5.1885. There being no divisions between the brothers, on the death of Thiruvengadam-II in 1923 leaving behind his wife Sivabaghyam and his daugher Ranganayaki, and there being no male heir, plaintiffs claimed that the properties in which Parimanam hada share went to the surviving coparceners, and therefore, they fell to the share of plaintiffs. Sivabaghyam had only a right of residence in the house. On 23.3.1938, she executed Exhibit A-4, a release deed in favour of Thiruvengadam I, the plaintiffs' father, on consideration of the latter agreeing to discharge the debts to the extent of Rs. 300/- contracted by her. This was attested by the first defendant who also identified her before the Sub-Registrar. On the same day, a settlement deed was executed in her favour by plaintiffs' father, conferring on her a life estate in the suit house for the purpose of her residence without any power of alienation. She died on 24.1.1967. During her life time, contrary to the terms of the settlement deed, Exhibit A-5, she had executed a sale deed in respect of the house in favour of her son-in-law, the first defendant on 27.11.1941 under Exhibit B-1. As she had no legal right to alienate the property, and since defendants refused to surrender possession, they had no legal right whatsoever, and hence, the plaintiffs had to file the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession with mesne profits.

(2.) First defendant disputed the relationship of pax parties and claimed that Sivbhagyam's limited right became absolute on the passing of Hindu Succession Act, and therefore, Exhibit B-1 is valid. The release deed (Exhibit A-4) was brought about by undue influence and misrepresentation. Exhibit A-5 settlement deed was never acted upon.

(3.) Trial Court held that the release deed (Exhibit A-4) and the settlement deed (Exhibit A-5) are true and valid documents, and they had been acted upon, and hence decreed the suit. Defendants preferred A.S. No. 754 of 1974 to this Court. The learned Judge held that this is a case to which Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act applies, and as Sivabagyam, held the property as full owner on her death, second defendant being the statutory heir, was therefore entitled to the property, irrespective of any alienation by her in favour of first defendant under Exhibit B-1. Hence, it was held that plaintiffs had no right to the property, and therefore, dismissed the suit. As against the said decision, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by plaintiffs.