RAJA RAMASWAMI (DEAD) Vs. GOVINDAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the 3 defendant in O.S. No. 641 of 1924 on the file of the City Civil Court. By the decree passed in that suit the appellant is directed to deliver up to the plaintiff, who is the 1 respondent in this appeal, possession of the suit property and also pay him the mesne profits as ascertained therein and also his costs of the suit. The 5 defendant in the suit is implead-ed as the 2nd respondent in this appeal.

(2.) The material facts of the case as to which there is now no dispute are as follows: The suit property which is a house and ground in Old Washermanpet belonged to one Venkatarama Chetti. He died on 6 September, 1904, leaving him surviving a son named Rangan Chetti, a grandson by that son named Krishnappa Chetti and also a widowed daughter and two grandchildren by her. On 22nd July, 1904, he executed a will in respect of his properties which among others comprised the suit property. As regards the suit propetty, the provisions of the will gave to the son Rangan Chetti a life estate therein without power of alienation and the remainder absolutely to the grandson Krishnappa Chetti with full powers of alienation. An allowance of Rs. 6 per month was also directed to be paid to the daughter and her children out of the income of the suit property until she got possession of her husband's estate. See Ex. A.

(3.) On 6 February, 1905, the suit property was conveyed by a deed of sale to the 2nd defendant Gurunatha Mudaliar and his father Raju Mudaliar by the following persons, namely (1) Rangan Chetti for himself and as father and guardian of his minor son Krishnappa Chetti, (2) Rangan Chetti's wife, Angammal, and (3) Venkatarama Chetti's daughter whose name is herein given as Peddiammal acting for herself and as guardian of her two minor children. The sale-deed recites the receipt by the vendors of the consideration of Rs. 800 for which the property was sold and the delivery of possession of the property to the purchasers. Since then the suit property has all along been in the possession of the 2nd defendant's family. The 3rd defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant and by some family arrangement, which it is unnecessary to refer to, the suit property was in his possession and enjoyment at the date of the suit, a portion thereof having been let by him to the 4 defendant.