PARISA MUDALIAR Vs. NATARAJA UDAYAR ALIAS NATESA UDAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit by a Hindu reversioner for setting aside an alienation by the limited owners. Defendants 1 to 5 and 12 and 13 are the appellants and the plaintiff is the respondent. The suit properties belonged to one V. Kandaswami Udayar who died in 1901 leaving his widow Lakshmayi Ammal and three daughters Valliammal, Nallammal and Ponnaylammal, Nallammal was married to one P. Kandaswami Udayar and there were three sons by the marriage--Thangavelu, Ponnusami and Natarajan, minor, who is the plaintiff in the suit, O. S. No. 20 of 1943 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem. The suit was instituted on behalf of the minor by his next friend. Defendants 1 to 13 are the alienees and representative of the alienees. Nallammal and Ponnayammal, the two surviving daughters are defendants 14 and 15. Valliammal died in 1927 and Lakshmayi Ammal, widow of Kandaswami Udayar, died in 1928. Thangavelu, the eldest son of Nallammal died a short time prior to the institution of the suit. Ponnuswami the second son, though alive, is not made a party. The properties alienated admittedly belonged to V. Kandaswami Udayar, the last male holder. After his death the properties were in the possession of his widow, Kakshmayi Ammal, until her death in 1928 and thereafter in the possession of Nallammal and her sons.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that he is one of the nearest reversioners to succeed to the suit properties, that on 19th May 1934 his mother, Nallammal, defendant 14 and Ponnammal, defendant 15 and four others sold the suit properties to defendants l and 2 and father of defendants 3 and 4. To the said sale the plaintiff's father P. Kandaswami Udayar was also a party. Defendants 5 to 13 are the subsequent alienees. The plaintiffs alleged that the alienation of 19th May 1934 was not binding on the reversioners and that he was therefore entitled to a declaration that the alienation was not binding when the reversion opens on the death of defendants 14 and 15. The defence is that the said sale was for proper and necessary purposes binding on the estate of V. Kandaswami Udayar and the reversioners thereto, that the necessity for the sale and the propriety of the sale were evidenced from the fact that not only defendants 14 and 15 executed the sale deed, but the father P. Kandaswami Udayar and the major elder brother of the plaintiff. Thangavelu also joined in executing the same. Other defences were also raised, but they are unnecessary for a consideration of this appeal, since the counsel for the appellants confined his arguments to the question of the necessity for the sale and its binding nature on the reversioners. So the only issue for determination in the appeal is whether the sale-deed dated 19th May 1934 was one executed for purposes necessary and binding on the reversioners.

(3.) Exhibit P. 1 is the sale deed dated 19th May 1934 executed by P. Kandaswami Udayar, Nallammal, defendant 14 her eldest son Thangavelu and minors Ponnuswami and plaintiff by their father and guardian P. Kandaswami Udayar, and Ponnayammal, defendant 15 for a consideration of Rs. 14,500. The sale includes not only the properties of V. Kandaswami Udayar, but also the properties of the father of the plaintiff, P. Kandaswami Udayar. A sum of Rs 12,700 out of the price of Rs. 14,500 is paid in discharge of the principal and interest due on two mortgages for Rs. 4000 each dated 30th November 1925 and 22nd August 1929 Exs. D-6 and D-13 respectively. A sum of Rs. 1350 is provided for payment of the balance of principal and interest due under a mortgage deed dated 10th September 1926 for Rs. 1000 executed by Lakshmayi Ammal, Ex. D-9. A sum of Rs. 250 is paid in respect of a deed of usufructuary mortgage executed by Lakshmayi Ammal, for Rs. 250 dated 9th December 1926, Ex. D-10 and the balance of Rs. 200 is towards payment of a usufructuary mortgage executed by Lakshmayi Ammal for Rs. 200 on 29th January 1926, Ex. D-7. We have therefore to examine whether the debts covered by the several documents and for the discharge of which the properties have been sold were incurred for necessary purposes binding on the reversioners.