Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to his grandfather Sooraseshachalam Chetty; he executed a deed of settlement dated 10-3-1959 in respect of the suit property and another property bearing Door No.13, Manikanda Mudali Street, Madras-1, in favour of his wife Soora Lakshmanamma @ Varalakshmiammal, grandmother of the plaintiff and the second defendant; she was granted absolute powers to alienate the property in any manner she might desire; however, it was provided in the settlement deed that if the property was left unalienated by her, the settlor should enjoy the income from the property for his life time and after the life time of the settlor and the beneficiary, the remaining properties if not alienated by then, would go to the plaintiff, the second defendant and any son that might be born to their son Ramachandra Chetty and also the sons of the first defendant in equal shares with full powers of alienation; (The other details have already been set out.); the settlee was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the other property; she sold the other property and at the time of her death on 2.5.1978, only the suit property was available; the settlor pre-deceased his wife; the father of the plaintiff and the second defendant Ramachandra Chetty died on 4-4-1982; as per the terms of the settlement, the plaintiff and the second defendant alone were entitled to the suit property and the first defendant had no right whatsoever to claim any interest in the suit property except the right of residence till his death; defendants 3 to 5 were the original tenants under the settlor. It is not necessary to notice the details of the pleadings relating to defendants 3 to

4. The first defendant filed a written statement contending inter alia as follows:

The interpretation of the settlement deed by the plaintiff is incorrect, that the plaintiff had significantly suppressed the condition stipulated in the settlement deed and that if the beneficiary was to pre-decease the settlor, the property was to vest in the plaintiff and the second defendant. In as much as the beneficiary had not predeceased the settlor, the condition not having been fulfilled, the plaintiff and the second defendant could not have any right under the subsequent disposition. The intention of the settlor in providing the defeasance clause was to provide the benefit by way of life interest on the settlor and therefore the ulterior disposition failed and the plaintiff and the second defendant had no manner of right in the suit property. The ulterior disposition which was repugnant to the prior disposition by way of absolute gift was void. Further, the first defendant had been provided the right of residence in the suit property during his life time without mentioning the portions to be occupied by him and therefore, the plaintiff could not claim possession against him. Defendants 3 to 5 were statutory tenants. The first defendant as heir was entitled to a share in the property. He was occupying the property in his own right. The suit was devoid of merit.

7. Mr.R. Subramanian, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that what is contained in Ex.A-1 settlement is not a repugnant clause, but a defeasance clause, that there could be no prohibition against such a clause in a deed, that the settlement deed only provided that in case there was any property left behind unalienated by the beneficiary, the settlor's grandsons would have to take the property, that the first defendant was issueless and that in those circumstances, the plaintiff and the second defendant together became entitled to the suit property.

"In consideration of love and affection which the settlor bears towards the beneficiary, he the settlor settles house ground and premises No.13, Manikanda Mudali Street, George Town, Madras, and house ground and premises No.123, Audiappa Naicken Street, George Town, Madras, and more particularly described in the schedules A and B on the beneficiary absolutely subject to the following conditions and covenants hereinafter contained the settlor has put the beneficiary in possession of the said properties and the beneficiary has taken possession of the same and the beneficiary shall enjoy the said properties absolutely for herself and shall pay the taxes thereon and keep the properties in proper condition meeting herself the expenses of repairs, etc. The beneficiary shall have absolute powers to alienate the said properties in any manner whatsoever as she desires. The beneficiary shall have also power to ask her sons to vacate the properties and give vacant possession of the portions in their occupation. In case the properties if not alienated by then and subject to any encumbrances whereto the beneficiary might have created thereon. The settlor shall enjoy the income from the said properties for his life time. After the life time of the settlor and the beneficiary, the properties if any remaining shall be taken by their grandsons Sukumar aged about 8 years and Badrinarayana aged about 7 years, sons of Ramachandradev and such other sons that may be born to him and the sons of my second son Gopal any born, in equal shares absolutely with full powers of alienation. In case my second son Gopal has no issue whatsoever, he shall be allowed to live in premises No.123, Audiappa Naicken Street, George Town, Madras, for his life time. The beneficiary shall allow her daughter Saraswathi to enjoy two rooms in any of the houses free of rent for her life time."