DURAI Vs. D. DEVARAJALU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed of the plaintiff in O.S. No.272 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore. The properties under consideration in this case originally belonged to a Hindu undivided family consisting of one Pakkiriswami Naidu, his son Muthu Naidu and the plaintiff the grandson of Muthu Naidu as coparceners. On 19th September, 1955, when the plaintiff was aged about three years, a document was executed by Pakkiriswami and Muthu Naidu settling the suit properties on the plaintiff. His mother was to be the guardian and to be in possession of the properties, and on the plaintiff attaining majority, the properties were to be handed over to him. The plaintiff has attained majority, and he filed the present suit for setting aside certain sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 to 10, for possession and for future mesne profits. The sale deeds have been marked as Exhibits B -3, B -7, B -9, B -10 and B -11. The said sale deeds have been executed either by the plaintiff's father, who has been impleaded as the 11th defendant or by his mother. The case of the plaintiff was that neither the 11th defendant nor his mother had any right to execute sale deeds and that the said sale deeds were not binding on him. The defendants filed their respective written statements. The first defendant is the alienee of plaint item No. 1 conveyed under Exhibit B -10 by the 11th defendant purporting to act for himself and on behalf of his minor son. Defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded in respect to a claim of two items described as Items Nos. 2 and 3 in the plaint. The said defendants have been subsequently given up and, therefore, it is unnecessary to say anything more about them. The fourth defendant is the alienee in respect of items 7 to 12 of the plaint -purported to have been conveyed under Exhibit B -9 by the 11th defendant. The other defendants, except the 11th defendant, similarly are the vendees under one or the other of the documents.

(2.) The contention of the defendants was that the properties continued to be joint family properties notwithstanding the execution of the settlement deed, that the settlement deed was not valid and that the alienations were, therefore, binding on the plaintiff. The 11th defendant, in his written statement, pointed out that the settlement deed was a sham and nominal transaction, that the properties continued to belong to the joint family and that the alienations have been made for purposes binding on the family.

(3.) Several issues were framed in the suit, the main issues being (1) whether the settlement deed dated 19th September, 1955, is true and valid? and (2) whether the alienations in favour of the respective defendants were valid, legal and binding on the plaintiff. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's one -fourth share in the suit properties -excepting items 2 and 3 holding that the alienations in favour of defendants 6 to 10 were not binding. The said alienations were set aside. In the final decree proceedings, the properties purchased by defendants 1, 9 and 10 were to be allotted to the share of the plaintiff as far as possible and the suit was dismissed as against defendants 2 and 3. It is this decree which is now challenged in the present appeal.