W SUBBALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. NARASIMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, arise out of O.S. No. 14 of 1922 in the Court of the District Judge of Chingleput which was instituted under the following circumstances: The plaintiffs in the suit two undivided brothers, are the sons of one of the sisters of one Venusamiah who died on the 4 of June, 1917. The 1 defendant is the widow of Samiaha divided brother of the said Venusamiah who had also a younger brother Seetharamaiah. The latter died leaving a widow Kanni Ammal, who died on the 4 April, 1917. The properties in her possession came to Venusamiah who enjoyed them till his death. It is alleged in the plaint that the suit properties consisting of those which belonged to Venusamiah and Kanni Ammal were in the enjoyment of Venusamiah, that the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to these properties under the Hindu Law and the 1 defendant who had no right whatever to the properties took unlawful possession of them along with others after Venusamiah's death. Consequent on disputes between the parties as regards possession of these properties magisterial proceedings commenced which ended by the passing of an order by the Deputy Magistrate, Saidapet, under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in favour of the 1 defendant and against the 1 plaintiff on the 21 of February, 1919. The 2nd plaintiff was not a party to this order. Subsequently the 1 plaintiff obtained the rights of the sons of the other sisters of the deceased Venusamiah by deeds, dated the 25 June. 1919, 21 November, 1919 and 30th November, 1919. The two plaintiffs thus becoming entitled to all rights in the estate of the deceased Venusamiah filed a suit on 20 February, 1920 in the District Munsif's Court to set aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate and for declaration of this title and for possession of the suit properties. The 1 defendant in that suit contended that the true value of the property set the case beyond the jurisdiction of the District Munsif and also stated amongst other things that the plaintiffs were not the next of kin to the deceased Venusamiah as there were agnates and one Kothandaramasamiah was the nearest reversioner and she filed a genealogical tree. Accepting the contention that the suit was beyond his jurisdiction the District Munsif returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court on the 28 of February, 1921. On the 7 July, 1921 the 1 plaintiff by Ex. C get a conveyance from Kothandaramasamiah of all his rights to the suit properties. Afterwards on the 21 March, 1922 he along with the 2nd plaintiff filed the present suit to establish their claims to the suit properties. In her written statement the 1 defendant who is the contesting defendant denied that the plaintiffs are the heirs living in Pa-randarmi village, Wallajah Taluq. It was/also stated by her that the present suit filed beyond three years from the date of the Deputy Magistrate's order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code 2lst February, 1919 is barred by limitation under Art. 47, Schedule I of the Limitation Act. On these main contentions the learned District Judge held that Kothandaramasamiah was the nearest reversioner of the deceased Venusamiah, that the suit so far as the 1 plaintiff who alone was a party to the Magisterial proceedings is concerned was barred under Art. 47 of the Limitation Act, that the sale-deed Ex. C though taken in the name of the 1 plaintiff operated in favour of both the plaintiffs and that the 2nd plaintiff is therefore entitled to succeed to recover all the properties that Venusamiah died possessed of and which were in the possession of the defendants. A decree was accordingly given in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. Against this decree the 1 defendant has filed Appeal No. 219 of 1923 and the 1 plaintiff has filed Appeal No. 154 of 1924.

(2.) Accepting the finding that the suit is barred by limitation against the 1 plaintiff, Mr. Ganapathi Aiyar for the appellant in Appeal No. 219 of 1923 has argued before us (1) that on the evidence the Lower Court ought to have held that the plain tiffs failed to prove that they were the nearest reversioners or that Kothandaramasamiah from whom the plaintiff's claim was the next heir to Venusamiah's estate; (2) that even if Kothandaramasamiah has been proved to be the nearest reversioner he did not intend to convey any rights under Ex. C, (3) that no title could be conveyed under that document on account of defects in registration under the Registration Act, (4) that if any rights were conveyed at all, these, on a construction of the document, would only be in favour of the 1 plaintiff and (5) that, in any event on the findings of the District Judge the 2nd plaintiff would be entitled to only half the properties and not to the whole. Contesting the various main points above-mentioned, Mr. Somayya in his Appeal No. 154 of 1924 has gone further and argued that the learned District Judge's conclusion that the 1 plaintiff's suit is barred under Art. 47 of the Limitation Act, is wrong in law and that the 1 plaintiff should be given a decree for the entire properties.

(3.) On these respective contentions the main questions of law and fact that arise before us for consideration in the two appeals are these: (1) Is Kothandaramasamiah the nearest reversioner to the estate of the late Venusamiah? (2) Did Kothandaramasamiah intend to convey any rights under Ex. C and if so, in whose favour were the rights conveyed? (3) Is the document invalid under the registration law? (4) Is the suit barred by limitation so far as the 1 plaintiff is concerned under Art. 47 of the Limitation Act? and (5) What is the appropriate decree to be passed in pursuance of our conclusions on the above points?