(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of 15 items of properties on the ground that the plaintiff has become entitled thereto under a gift deed (Ex. A) executed in his favour by one Seetha Bai Ammal on the 4 September, 1914. Seetha Bai Ammal was the widow of one Jagannadha Rao and the mother-in-law of the first defendant. As the first defendant is also called Seetha Bai Ammal, we will refer to the first defendant when necessary as the daughter-in-law.
(2.) Jagannadha Rao died some time in 1903, leaving him surviving his widow Seetha Bai Ammal and an adopted son Subba Rao, who died in May, 1914. The evidence shows that during the last days of Subba Rao or soon after his death the relations between the mother-in- law and the daughter-in-law became strained and the plaintiff who is the grandson of a brother of the mother-in-law and who had been living in Subba Rao's family for some years managed to persuade the old lady to execute a gift in his favour of properties in respect of which the title stood in her name. The old lady died a few months after the date of the gift and, for several years thereafter, the plaintiff on the one hand and the first defendant on the other have been endeavouring to secure the tenants in possession of these properties to their respective sides till ultimately the plaintiff instituted this suit just when the period of 12 years from the date of the gift deed was about to expire.
(3.) The plaintiff claimed that the properties in respect of which the title deeds stood in the donor's name were her stridhanam properties and that she was accordingly competent to make a gift thereof. The first defendant who was the contesting defendant pleaded that though the title to these properties stood in Seetha Bai Animal's name, they had all been purchased with the funds belonging to Jagannadha Rao, benami in her name. A plea of limitation was also raised. The question of benami formed the subject of the first issue and the question of limitation of the second issue.