Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that since the suit property had already been gifted to Kuppayammal and Unnamulaiammal under the original of Ex.A3 on 18.09.1910 itself and possession was also taken by those donees, thereafter the donor Arunachala Thevar did not have any right or power in respect of the said property to convey a valid title to Kandaswamy Thevar, the purchaser under the original of Exs. A9 and B1. The learned lower appellate Judge seems to have proceeded on the assumption that the contesting defendants disputed the genuineness of the gift settlement deed relied on by the plaintiffs, a copy of which has been produced as Ex.A3. The same has led to the finding of the lower appellate Court that the said document being an ancient document should be presumed to be genuine. At the cost of repetition, it is pointed out that it is not the case of the contesting defendants that the gift settlement deed dated 18.09.1910 was not genuine and on the other hand, they simply contended that their predecessor in title, namely Kandaswamy Thevar derived the title under the sale deeds dated 29.04.1912. During the course of evidence, an attempt was made on behalf of the defendants to contend that the gift settlement deeds dated 18.09.1910, certified copies of which have been marked as Exs.A2 and A3 were not acted upon and possession was not given to the donees under the said documents. The said attempt was made to show that they were sham and nominal documents. The learned trial Judge seems to have accepted the contention of the defendants that those gift settlement deeds were not acted upon and hence, the donees under the said documents did not derive valid title. But, it must be seen that except the ipse dixit of DW1, who is none other than the third defendant, there is no other evidence to show that the gift settlement deeds dated 18.09.1910, certified copies of which have been marked as Exs.A2 and A3, were sham and nominal documents and they were not acted upon. Though he would have stated that the settlement deeds were executed as sham and nominal deeds, he pleaded absence of personal knowledge regarding the same. However, he has stated that without referring to the settlement deeds and disregarding the settlement deeds, sale was effected in favour of Kandaswamy Thevar under the sale deed dated 29.04.1912 and that, on the basis of the said document, the purchaser and thereafter, his son and after him the defendants 1 to 3 were in possession and enjoyment of the same.