BHAGEERATHI AMMAL Vs. KUPPALAMMAL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question arising in the second appeal filed by the plaintiff is interpretation of two vital documents. The suit is for partition. It relates to three houses situate from north to south and numbered respectively as Door No. 27, 26 and 25. These three houses originally belonged to one Kaveriammal. She had four daughters and one son. The daughters are: The plaintiff Bhageerathiammal, first defendant Kuppalanmmal, mother of the second defendant Thangammal, and fourth defendant Lakshmi. Kaveriammal mortgaged the properties under three documents viz., Exc.A4 dated 13.11.1919, and Exs.A5 and A6 both dated 8.6.1928. then Kaveriammal executed two sale deeds in respect of the middle house and southern house in favour of second defendant's mother Thangammal under Ex.A7 dated 31.7.1981 and Ex.A8 dated 4.9.1931.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that Thangammal did not discharge the mortgages under Exs.A4 to A6 as directed in the sale deeds Exs.A7 and A8 executed in her favour and therefore after Thangammal's death in 1932 her husband Gopala Iyer i.e., father of the second defendant reconveyed those houses to Kaveriammal under two sale deeds Exs.A9 and A10 both dated 22.4.1932, and thus Kaveriammal was the sole owner of the three houses until her death in 1945; only the plaintiff, first defendant, second defendant and fourth defendant are the heirs of Kaveriammal. As such the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4 share in the houses; and therefore there must be a decree for the said 1/4 share in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) The suit is mainly contested by the second defendant She would contend that under Exs.A7 and A8 sale deeds executed by Kaveriammal in respect of the middle and southern houses in favour of her daughter Thangammal, Thangammal became the owner of those houses and after her death the second defendant as her daughter and sole heir became entitled to those houses. She would further contend that the sale deeds Exs.A9 and A10 executed by her father Gopala Iyer are not valid and they have not affected her right and hence the plaintiff has no right in the middle and southern houses. As regards the northern house the second defendant has pleaded that she had perfected title by adverse possession. Thus the second defendant denies that the plaintiff has any right in any of the houses.