NARAYANA GOUNDER Vs. DEVAKI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case has had a chequered career.

(2.) THE first defendant in O.S. No. 278 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif of Villupuram is the appellant in the second appeal. THE first respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of title and possession on the following averments: THE suit properties originally belonged to one Lakshmi Ammal. Her daughter-in-law was one Govindammal. Her brother was Gurusamy and Gurusamy's son one Jagadev was married to one Dhanammal the first respondent was their daughter. Lakshmiammal executed a registered settlement deed under Ex.A-1 on 29.12.1959 giving the properties to her daughter-in-law Govindammal to be enjoyed by her during her life time without powers of alienation and the grandchildren of Gurusamy were to take the suit properties absolutely after the life time of Govindammal. Govindammal sold away the suit first item to the appellant on 10.1.1974 and bequeathed the second item to one Mannangatti Gounder, who in his turn sold that item to the second defendant in the suit one Ananthakrishnan. THE first respondent was the sole surviving grandson of Lakshmiammal's brother Gurusamy. As per the settlement deed the suit items were vested with the first respondent on the death of Govindammal two years prior to the suit. However, the appellant taking advantage of the sale deed, has not only taken possession of the first item, but also trespassed in the suit third item. THE second defendant Ananthakrishnan had been in possession of the suit second item. THE first respondent was entitled to recover possession of the suit properties with mesne profits. A notice was issued on 4.7.1978 evoking a reply from the appellant on 22.7.1978 containing false allegations. THE suit therefore came to be filed.

(3.) THE present appellant and the third defendant Ranganathan Gounder filed appeal A.S. No. 92 of 1986 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Villupuram. It is seen from the judgment of the Sub ordinate Judge, Villupuram, that the Counsel for the appellants before the Sub Court argued only for remission of the suit once again to the trial court to give an opportunity to the defendants to examine their witnesses and themselves to prove their case. THE Subordinate Judge having rejected the request on behalf of the defendants and dismissed the appeal, the present second appeal has been filed.