K A P VISWANATHAN PILLAI Vs. VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/appellant who failed before the courts below in getting the decree as prayed for, has filed the above Second Appeal.

(2.) THE suit properties were part of the estate of Thavasilingam Pillai who died on 24.12.1914 leaving behind him his widow Nagammal, and they did not have any issues. At the time of the marriage, Nagammal was minor and she became major in the year 1921. She alienated some of the properties from the estate of Thavasilingam Pillai. THE plaintiff and his brothers on the basis that they are reversioners to Thavasilingam Pillai filed O.S. No. 212 of 1953 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli challenging the said alienation. THE said suit ended in compromise between the parties and the decree is marked as Ex.A-14. As per the said compromise, admittedly, certain properties were given to the said Nagammal. After the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, claiming that she is the absolute owner of the suit properties, Nagammal executed a settlement deed under Ex.B-6 in favour of the fourth defendant. THE fourth defendant sold the said properties to the defendants 1 to 3 under Exs.B.11 and B.12 on 16.6.1969. THEreafter the plaintiff/appellant claiming that he is entitled to succeed to the suit properties as reversioners to the estate of Thavasilingam Pillai filed the present suit in O.S. No. 407 of 1979 for recovery of possession of the suit properties with mesne profits. THE same was resisted by the defendants/respondents stating that the suit properties are the absolute properties of Nagammal and so she is entitled to execute the settlement deed in favour of the fourth defendant and thereby the defendants 1 to 3 got valid title to the suit properties. THE trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Aggrieved against the same the plaintiff/appellant filed appeal in A.S. No. 2 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Karur. THE lower appellate court also dismissed the appeal confirming the findings given by the trial court. Still aggrieved the appellant has filed the above Second Appeal.

(3.) IN view of the above, there cannot be any doubt that the widow was permitted to retain possession of the properties as mentioned in the compromise decree and the same should be in recognition of her right to maintenance which was a pre-existing right and, therefore, the said Nagammal's right was enlarged, in view of Section 14(1) of the Act 1956, read with explanation thereto. So, the courts below are correct in rejecting the case of the plaintiff/appellant.