VELU SETHURAYAR Vs. KARUPPAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs who are the sisters sons of the last owner for a declaration that the alienations made by one or other of the three widows of the last male holder are not valid and binding on them, after the death of the widows. The suit is resisted by the alienees mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs are not the nearest reversioners but that the 22nd defendant is the nearer reversioner, he being alleged to be the deceased's brother's son. If the 22nd defendant is the son of a deceased brother of the last male holder, it is undoubted that in law he succeeds in preference to the sisters sons. The 22nd defendant also claims that he was the nearer reversioner and that the alienations were not binding upon him. On these pleadings an issue was joined whether the plaintiffs are the nearest reversioners which involves the question of fact whether the 22nd defendant is the brother's son of the deceased. After an elaborate trial, the lower Court found against the plaintiffs and in favour of the relationship set up on behalf of the alienees and by the 22nd defendant. The suit was accordingly dismissed as being one by a remote reversioner. The lower Court held that there were no circumstances alleged or proved which would enable a remote reversioner to maintain a suit when there is a nearer reversioner alive. The plaintiffs appeal.

(2.) The finding that the plaintiffs are not the nearest reversioners and that the 22nd defendant is the brother's son of the deceased is amply justified by the documentary and oral evidence which has been dealt with in the judgment of the lower Court. We see no reason to differ from the finding of the lower Court on that point.

(3.) The main question urged by the learned advocate for the appellant is that the 22nd defendant who is a party to this suit has not filed any suit to impugn the alienations in question so far, that he himself is an alienee of one of the items in the suit, and that this is a case in which the 22nd defendant has either colluded with the other alienees or has precluded himself from filing the suit. It is therefore urged that a suit by the remote reversioner may be sustained. The declaration sought, it is said, is for the benefit of the reversion, i.e., for the benefit of the person who happens to be the reversioner at the time of the widow's death.