Skip to content


Jeevarathnammal Vs. N. Varada Pillai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.111
AppellantJeevarathnammal
RespondentN. Varada Pillai and anr.
Excerpt:
registration act (xvi of 1908), sections 17 and 49 - document merely referring to gift previously made, if requires registration--adverse possession--ownership parted. - - in exhibit xii, the two ladies alangarammal and rajammal say that they have already given the villages to doraisani ammal and wind it up by saying that doraisani ammal should hold and enjoy the villages with the right of alienation thereof by way of gift, mortgage or sale. strong reliance was placed on the evidence of defendant's 1st witness who has been believed by the district judge......i think, both the counsel and the judges committed at the last trial, namely, that the will of rajammal purported to deal with the suit property. i think there can be but one effect given to the recitals in the will, and that is that they show the knowledge of the ladies that they were not in possession and that they received the rents not on their own behalf, bat on behalf of doraisani animal.2. the appeal will be allowed with costs throughout.3. the petitions are dismissed.srinivasa aiyangar, j.4. now that the full bench has decided that exhibits xii and xii (a) are admissible, i think that the case really admits of no doubt. in exhibit xii, the two ladies alangarammal and rajammal say that they have already given the villages to doraisani ammal and wind it up by saying that.....
Judgment:

Coutts-Trotter, J.

1. In spite of all that the learned Counsel for the respondents had urged, he has not persuaded me that the conclusion which I formed on the last occasion on the materials then before me is incorrect. I have been in fact unable to come to any other conclusion. I still feel that even if the Full Bench had not decided that Exhibits XII and XII (a) were relevant, I should come to the conclusion that an adequate case of adverse possession by Doraisani Ammal has been made out, especially after my learned brother has cleared up the obvious mistake which, I think, both the Counsel and the Judges committed at the last trial, namely, that the Will of Rajammal purported to deal with the suit property. I think there can be but one effect given to the recitals in the Will, and that is that they show the knowledge of the ladies that they were not in possession and that they received the rents not on their own behalf, bat on behalf of Doraisani Animal.

2. The appeal will be allowed with costs throughout.

3. The petitions are dismissed.

Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.

4. Now that the Full Bench has decided that Exhibits XII and XII (a) are admissible, I think that the case really admits of no doubt. In Exhibit XII, the two ladies Alangarammal and Rajammal say that they have already given the villages to Doraisani Ammal and wind it up by saying that Doraisani Ammal should hold and enjoy the villages with the right of alienation thereof by way of gift, mortgage or sale. It is admitted that in pursuance of that petition, the registry was changed to the name of Doraisani Animal and from that time pattahs and muchilikas were exchanged with Doraisani Ammal. I am unable to appreciate why these two ladies, if they intended that Doraisani Ammal should not take the property from that time, should make the statements in Exhibit XII before the Collector and have the registry transferred. It appears that in the course of the arguments which were advanced at the previous hearing, the Counsel for the respondent suggested that because the ladies were old, they wanted to transfer the management to Doraisani Ammal. If they did transfer the management, it meant that they wanted to place Doraisani Ammal in possession of the properties. The learned Judge in the Court below has come to the conclusion that Doraisani Ammal was in possession, but that possession cannot be said to be adverse to her mother and aunt. I really do not understand how the possession of Doraisani Ammal, if it commenced in 1895, could be other than adverse possession against the other two ladies. It is not said that there was any such relationship between the two as mortgagor and mortgagee or as tenants-in-common or that the possession of one was the possession of the other. The possession of Doraisani Ammal if, as a matter of fact, she had possession, cannot be permissive; the suggestion is not that Doraisani managed for the two ladies. Strong reliance was placed on the evidence of defendant's 1st witness who has been believed by the District Judge. He states that he used to pay the rents collected indifferently to any one of the three ladies who was present at the time of the payment. That to my mind shows nothing. It is proved by defendants' 1st witness that Doraisani Ammal, who was until the time of the gift living with her husband at Madras, immediately after the gift, practically lived at Sriperumbudur with her mother and aunt. She was not only living with them, but managing the whole of the property; looking to the relationship between the parties it seems to me to be but natural that rents would be received by the two ladies, the mother and aunt of Doraisani Ammal, and that Doraisani Ammal would not insist upon her sole right, more especially as she obtained that right from them. Such receipt must have been on behalf of Doraisani. The Will of Rajammal makes this conclusive. She recites in it that Doraisani Ammal has been in possession, and as I read that paragraph, I take it that she states Doraisani was in possession from the time of the transfer of the registry, which was in May 1896. There was a contention that Rajammal was attempting to make a devise or disposition of the village among others by her Will, Exhibit I. I have read it carefully and I do not think she does that. On the other hand, in the 1st paragraph she recites the previous gift in favour of the girl and the transfer of the registry and possession of the two villages by her. This is made still clear by the express devise in favour of Doraisani of the arrears of rent due down to fasli 1350 together with other properties. There is not a single word about the devise of these villages to her.

5. I now come to the only other documents in the case which are relied on, Exhibits B and C. They are two sale-deeds by Alangarammal of two houses which were originally purchased in the name of her sister, Rajammal. I find that, in the Will Exhibit I, Rajammal devised these two houses in favour of Doraisani Ammal. If, as a matter of fact, the house belonged to Rajammal, any alienation of them by Alangarammal in 1904 and 1909 could not in the position of Doraisani Ammal afford any indication of the consciousness of Alangarammal or Rajammal that they had not already given these villages. I am really unable to appreciate the argument as regards the inference sought to be drawn from the execution of these two documents. As I say that Alangarammal was under the impression that these two houses belonged to her, though purchased in the name of Rajammal, and that she ignored the gift under Exhibit 1. I think one of two presumptions is possible, either that Alangarammal disposed of the two houses with the consent of Doraisani Ammal, which consent may have been given by her in the belief that the money realized by the sale would not be utilised by Alangarammal, but would finally go to her or that Alangarammal did something which she was not entitled to do. Either way they do not prove that Rajammal and Alangarammal did not part with the possession of the villages. I agree in the judgment of my learned brother that Exhibit II could not be taken to be a completed Will of Alangarammal. I, therefore, agree that the appeal should be allowed with costs throughout and the petitions should be dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //