VAITHINATHA AIYAR Vs. VAITHINATHASAWMY AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals and Appeal No. 134 of 1910 are against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam in three different suits. Considerable inconvenience has been caused by their joint trial and by separate judgments not having been written in each of the cases. Original Suit No. 44 of 1906 was instituted by one Vaithinathasawmi Aiyar against his uncle, Vaithinatha Aiyar, to recover certain sums of money on two documents. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree in favour of the nephew. Appeal No. 134 of 1910 is against that decision. The uncle has appealed. Original Suit No. 2 of 1907 was by the uncle against the nephew for a declaration that the sale-deed of certain properties in the name of the nephew was benami for him, and for recovery of the properties. The nephew was the first defendant in this case and the vendee from the nephew was the 2nd defendant. The Subordinate Judge dismissed this suit. Appeal No. 135 of 1910 is the appeal against it by the uncle. In Original Suit No. 14 of 1908 the nephew sued the uncle with respect to a portion of the properties covered by the alleged nominal conveyance on the ground of trespass. The Subordinate Judge dismissed this suit. Appeal No 194 of 1910 has been preferred against that decision.

(2.) Thus, in all these three appeals, the uncle Vaithinatha Aiyar is the appellant. The nephew, Vaithinathasamwy Aiyar, is the sole respondent in Appeals Nos. 134 of 1910 and 194 of 1910. He is the first respondent in Appeal No. 135 of 1910, the second being the vendee.

(3.) I shall deal with Appeals Nos. 135 and 194 of 1910 first. The facts are these: The uncle had a divided brother who died leaving behind him his widow and a daughter, named Nagalakshmi Ammal. During the life-lime of the widow some of the properties now in dispute were conveyed to the father-in-law of Nagalakshmi Ammal. After the death of the widow, on the 27th September 1900 the father-in-law and Nagalakshmi Ammal sold the plaint properties by Exhibits A and B respectively to the nephew, Vaithinathasawmy Aiyar. In 1904 there were original proceedings under Section 145 in the Magistrates s Court between the uncle and the nephew regarding possession. The order of the Magistrate in these proceedings led to the two suits from which these appeals have been preferred.