SAMPOORNAMMAL Vs. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the appellant and the appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in the order of their array in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff is the son of the second defendant while the first defendant is the daughter of one Ellammal, a deceased sister of the second defendant Ellammal lost her husband at an young age and had come over to the second defendant's house with her daughter the first defendant who was then a minor. Taking into consideration the widowhood of his sister and her obligation to bring up her minor daughter, the second defendant settled 60 cents of land on her on 29-3-1954, under a registered settlement deed, a registration copy of which has been marked as Ex. A. 4. About two years thereafter, Ellammal died and the first defendant was brought up by the second defendant and given in marriage to one Venkatachala Naidu. The said extent of 60 cents forms part of S. No. 41/1 of an extent of 1.09 acres in Mazhanipakkam village. The plaintiff filed the suit, from out of which this second appeal has arisen, for declaration of his title to the 60 cents of land referred to above and for recovery of possession together with means profits. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property was joint family property and therefore, the second defendant was not competent to settle the property on Ellammal by means of a gift deed. He also contended that, in any event, the settlement had not been acted upon. His further case was that the suit property was always in the possession of the joint family, but in September 1971, the first defendant had trespassed upon the property and secured possession unlawfully.

(3.) The second defendant did not contest the suit and allowed himself to beset ex parte. The first defendant alone contested the suit, and contended that the suit property had been validly gifted by the second defendant and the gift had been acted upon by, Ellammal assuming possession of the property and retaining control over it till her death. The, further contention was that after her mother's death she had been is possession of the property and it was false to say that she had trespassed upon the property in September 1971, and wrested possession of the property from the members of the joint family.