RAJAMMAL Vs. SABAPATHI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated November 7, 1941, which reversed the appellate judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Salem, dated November 21, 1938 (which had affirmed the judgment and decree of the District Munsif of Sankaridrug at Salem), and decreed the respondents' suit to recover immoveable property forming part of the estate of one Annusami Filial

(2.) ANNUSAMI Pillai died in 1894, without issue, leaving him surviving two widows, namely, the senior Akilandammal, who died in 1899, and the junior Sundarammal, who died in April, 1934. The present suit was filed by Subbaraya Pillai, as nearest reversioner of ANNUSAMI, at the time of Sundarammal's death, against the present appellants, who claimed to retain possession of the properties under a registered deed of gift dated December 25, 1899, executed a few days after the death of Akilandammal by Sundarammal in favour of her elder brother, Kumaraswami Pillai, whose rights as donee are now vested in the present appellants.

(3.) THE learned Munsif held, on the evidence before him, that no question of estoppel by conduct arose to prevent the plaintiff from challenging Sundarammal's gift, but he held that the plaintiff had enjoyed a distinct benefit by) the transaction and that the doctrine of election operated to prevent him from resiling from the position which he had previously accepted. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge affirmed the judgment of the Munsif, placing his decision mainly on the same ground, i. e. that the plaintiff had derived a substantial interest under the deed of gift under challenge, and was not now entitled to repudiate it. But the learned Judge also stated that there could be very little doubt that the plaintiff and Arumugam, the only reversioners then in existence, had consented to the gift made by Sundarammal and their consent must be sufficient to make the gift binding on them. THEir Lordships may say at once that they are unable to discover any evidence of consent, apart from the point as to election, and counsel for the appellants was unable to indicate any such evidence.