THIRUMALAISAMY NAIDU Vs. VENKATARAMA AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in appeal 229 (23) plaintiffs 1 sue as reversioners of one Muthusami Naidu who died in 1873, leaving a widow Kuppammal who was in enjoyment of his property until she died in 1919. The appellants have obtained a decree for some items claimed by them and this appeal relates to 23 items for which their claim was disallowed. The appeal is only pressed in respect of items 15, 20, 21 and 23 to 28, the claim to the other items being given up. In order to determine the validity of the alienation of these items by the widow it is necessary to consider certain facts in the case. In 1884 the widow Kuppammal executed an othi deed in favour of one Perumal Kone in respect of item 31 for Rs. 350. This document was not registered and Perumal Kone-filed a suit to compel registration after a criminal case of cheating preferred against Kuppammal by him had been dismissed. The litigation in respect of the othi deed continued until about 1887 when Perumal Kone obtained a decree on his othi for sale of the property which he purchased in 1889 for Rs. 750. Before registration was ordered, Kuppammal executed a mortgage deed in respect of a portion of the house for Rs. 1,000 in favour of her aunt Kaveri Ammal. It has been found and is not now disputed that Rs. 500 out of the Rs 1,000 was borrowed for a purpose binding on the husband's estate. Kaveri Ammal filed a suit on this document and obtained a decree against Kuppammal and Perumal Kone. This went up to the High Court and the suit was dismissed with the observation that Kaveri Ammal should be in possession of the property until she was redeemed by Perumal Kone who had purchased the equity of redemption in execution of his own decree. Kaveri Animal's right eventually passed to one Chockayan who purchased the othi right in execution of a decree obtained thereon. Chokayan then brought a suit to recover possession of the properties or in the alternative for sale and obtained a decree for possession in the District Munsif's Court.

(2.) An appeal was then preferred by Perumal Kone who had already been held by the High Court not to be entitled to possession until ha redeemed this othi, and this appeal was compromised by Perumal Kone and Chockayan and other parties to the appeal, Kuppammal and Kaveri Ammal, not joining in the compromise. In that compromise there was a direction to sell items 2 to 9 in that suit (plaint items 23 to 28) and, if that were insufficient a portion of the1 house in Perumal Kone's possession was to be sold. It will thus be seen that this compromise was in contravention of the order of the High Court with reference to Perumal Kone's possession. Items 2 to 9 were sold for Rs. 197 and purchased by Muthalaga Kone, defendant 43, a relation of Perumal Kone, Chockayan did not further execute his decree and Perumal Kone remained in possession of item 31, the house. These are the main facts upon which the decision of this appeal depends.

(3.) So far as item 15 is concerned, it was sold under Ex. 1 in 1887 for Rs. 40. The money is said to have been paid: for meeting the High Court appeal expenses in connexion with the suit filed against me by Perumal Kone.