P SHUNMUGHA VELAYUDHAM CHETTY Vs. KOYAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff (appellant) purchased two houses, Items Nos. 1 and 2 in Schedule B attacked to the plaint, from the 1st and 2nd defendants who are reversioners to the estate of one Sabapathy Chettiar. The deed of purchase is Exhibit A, dated 27th November 1914. The 3rd defendant purchased Item No. 1 under Exhibit XI(a) on the 20th December 1913 from one Munusamy Mudali who had bought the property from one Marimuthu Chetty, his sister Thangachiammal and Sivakami, the widow of one Pakkiriswamy Chetty, under Exhibit XI in 1908. Marimuthu and Pakkiriswamy derived their title under a deed of gift or settlement, Exhibit VIII, dated 1901 from one Karuthan. Defendants Nos. 4, 5, 9 and 10 are interested in Item No. 1 along with the 3rd defendant, Item No. 2 is in the possession of the 6th defendant the widow of one Muthusawami Chetty, her son, the 7th defendant and a lessee, the 8th defendant. Sixth defendant s husband, Muthuswami Chetti, had bought this property under Exhibit XIII(a) on the 28th September 1882 for Us, 562 from one Nilambal.

(2.) First defendant, Rayappa Chetty, and Karuthan alias Muthayan Chetty are grand-sons by two daughters of Sabapathy Chettiar. Neelambal, who died in 1888, was the third daughter of Sabapathy Chetty. Sabapathy Chetti had left two other daughters, Meenakshi and Visalakshi, Meenakshi died in 1890. Visalakshi, who was the survivor of the five sisters, died on 5th February 1909. The property in dispute along with another house was first inherited by Sivakami, the widow of Sabapathy Chetty When she died in 1869 there were only three daughters then living, Meenakshi, Visalakshi and Neelambal, the mothers of Kayappa Chetty and Karuthan having predeceased their mother. Neelambal, the 2nd defendant s mother, had another son called Veerappan, who died in 1905, At the time of Visalakshi s death the only surviving grand-sons (daughter s sons) of Sabapathy were defendants Nos. 1 and 2. These are the material fact in regard to the history of the family.

(3.) In 1869, soon after the death of Sivakami, a suit was instituted by her eldest daughter Meenakshi against her sisters, Visalakshi and Neelambal, and the sons of her other two deceased sisters, Karuthan alias Muthayan the 1st defendant, Rayappan, and his brother, Kanagasabai, for partition of her share. By the decree in that suit she got 1/5th share in three houses including the two houses involved in this suit. The decree apparently gave her an absolute right to a 1/5th share in the family properties. Then the parties by the documents Exhibit III series, dated 26th April 1873, effeoted a partition of the properties, Meenakshi, Payappan, his brother, and Karuthan got one house, item No. 1; Neelambal got another house, Item No. 2; the third going to Visalakshi, The next transaction in order of date was a partition in the family of Karuthan and Rayappan, who were the sons, as we have already stated, of two sisters. In 1874 Karuthan instituted a suit for partition to which Meenakshi was a party and obtained a decree for 1/3rd share in Item No. 1. It appears that Meenakshi sold her 1/3rd share in that item to Karuthan in the suns year. Afterwards, in 1876, there was a further arrangement in Karuthan s family by which Karuthan got Item No 1 solely to himself, the 1st defendant, Rayappan, and his brother, Kanagasabai, having transferred their 3rd share to him and Karuthan having already obtained by purchase the 1/3rd share of Meenakahi. Thereafter, in 1901, Karuthan who possessed the entire rights in Item No. 1 made a gift of it to or settled it by Exhibit VIII on his wife s brothers and cousins, Marimuthu and Pakkiriswami, as already stated, through whom the 3rd defendant derived his title. The second item having fallen under the arrangement evidenced by Exhibit III series to Nilambal, she transferred it to the husband of the 6th defendant, as above mentioned, in 1882. Visalakshi died in 1909 and upon her death the 1st and 2nd defendants, the only surviving grand-sons, daughter s sons, of Sabapathy Chettiar succeeded to the estate as reversioners, and the plaintiff having purchased their rights instituted this suit to recover these house.