M MEENATCHI AMMAL ALIAS CHINNAMML Vs. MMANIOKA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first contention raised by Mr. Ramosam on behalf of the appellant (the defendant) in this appeal is that Ammayi Ammal, the wife of Kalappa Chetty, acquired a title to the property in question by virtue of a sale-deed executed in 1351 by Ponnammal in favour of Kalappa Chetty. Ponnammal was the grandmother of Ammayi Ammal, who was the wife of Kalappa Chetty. So far as the deed of sale goes, there is nothing to indicate that the transaction was not what it purported to be, namely, a sale to the husband. Mr. Ramesam very properly does not rely on the oral evidence with regard to this suggestion of a benami transaction. He has called our attention to two Wills, executed by Ponnammal before the sale-deed, devising the property in question to Kalappa Chetty, in which he is described as the husband of the granddaughter of Ponnammal. That to my mind does not show that the transaction of 185 i was a transaction under which Kalappi Chetty took the property benami on behalf of his wife Ammayi Ammal.

(2.) Then there is evidence that in the year 1833 Kalappa Chetty obtained a certificate from the Collector in his wife s name. It is not suggested that the obtaining of the certificate is evidence of a gift of the property by, Kalappa Chetty to his wife and to my mind it is not, in the circumstances of this case, evidence of a recognition by Kalappa Chetty of an antecedent title in his wife.

(3.) Then it has been suggested that the wife acquired a prescriptive title by adverse possession as against her husband. The only evidence as to that, so far as I can see, is the collecting of rents by the wife. I certainly am not prepared to differ from the conclusion which the learned Judge has come to, that there is no evidence of exclusive possession in the wife as against her husband. That being so, I agree with the learned Judge that no question of limitation arises.