KUPPANNA GOUNDER Vs. PERUMA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals arise out of the decree in O. S. No. 144 of 1952 on the file of the Sub court, Coimbatore, Defendants 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 are the appellants in the former appeal, while defendants 2 and 8 are the appellants in the latter. The suit was laid for a declaration of title of the plaintiffs respondents 1 and 2 to the suit properties, and for recovery of possession, with past and future mesne profits.

(2.) One Pongoliappa Gounden, who owned the suit properties, died in the year 1906, leaving him surviving his mother, Marakkal, and his sister, Kaliakkal. On his death, his mother succeeded to his properties. In August 1918, Marakkal entered into an arrangement with her husband's brothers, Kalianna Goundan and Peria Goundan, who were then the presumptive reversioners to the estate of Pongaliappa. The arrangement is evidenced by Exs. A. 2, A. 3, and A. 4 Ex. A. 2 dated 2-5-1918 purports to be a deed of "conveyance known as release deed" executed by Marakkal in favour of the reversioners, Kalianna and Peria. The document, to the terms of which we shall have to refer later, divided the entire properties of Pongaliappa into two Schedules A and B, and recited that as the reversioners had agreed to transfer absolutely the properties set out in schedule B to Kaliakkal, the widow surrendered the properties in schedule A in favour of the reversioners. Ex. A. 3, which is of the same date, is a stridhanam deed executed by the two reversioners and Marakkal in favour of Kaliakhal, whereby the latter was given absolutely the properties described in schedule B. to Ex. A. 2. Two days thereafter, Kaliakkal the donee under Ex. A. 3, effected a settlement, Ex. A. 4, creating in favour of her mother, Marakkal, an interest for life in 1 acre of nanja land, and in a house, the settlor and her heirs being declared entitled to the reversion. The three documents undoubtedly, formed part of a single transaction.

(3.) The arrangement was admittedly acted upon, and the parties took possession of the properties, and were in enjoyment of the same. Kaliakkal died in the year 1948, leaving behind her the first and second respondents, her sons, and a daughter. Sometimes prior to her death, she executed a will Ex. B. 2, under which she bequeathed her properties to respondents 1 and 2 and to her grandsons through a predeceased son. It is in evidence that the legatees accepted the will, and entered into possession of the properties devised thereunder. Even before the death of Kaliakkal, Act II of 1929 had been enacted, under which the sister and after her, her sons, would precede the father's brother as heir of a deceased person. Marakkal died in 1951. Respondents 1 and 2 who would be the nearest heirs to the estate of Pongaliappa by reason of Act II of 1929, claimed the inheritance after repudiating the binding nature of the surrender and the allied transactions effected in 1918 and also the will of Kaliakkal, and a suit was filed against the representatives of Kalianna and Peria who were by then dead, for declaration of their title, possession of the properties and mesne profits.