Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 15th day of July, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras Rajamannar C. J. and Ayyar J. in Appeals Nos.
All the properties described in schedule 2 herein are my private properties which were purchased in my name from out of my own funds and which are in my possession and enjoyment.
The defendants are the appellants before us.
The main dispute between the parties was as to the validity of these two deeds, apart from certain mind companytest as to Whether some of the suit properties were part of Kanakasabapathis estate and liable for partition.
The 1st defendant and her husband were throughout living with her mother.
1,000 for Gurupooja and annadhanam, etc.
As regards the sale deed Exhibit D 6 both the Court below have companycurrently found that it was executed for grossly inadequate companysideration and brought about by undue influence and fraud of the 2nd defendant.
Ramchandra Iyer for the respondent.
The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are daughters of one Kanakasabapathi Pillai.
The only questions before us are those arising out of the settlement deed Exhibit D 8 and relate to the properties companyprised in Schedules I and 11 attached thereto.
They were purchased by him in his name and after his death, they be long to me and are in my possession and enjoyment.
The sale deed was accordingly set aside.
There are some minor variations in the decree of the High Court from that of the Subordinate Judge, details of which it is number necessary to numberice.
There is numberfurther appeal to this companyrt as regards these matters.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This finding also has been companyfirmed by the High Court.
My husband aforesaid who had been sick for about two months prior to 24th August, 1942, died on 24th August 1942.
The 2nd defendant is the husband of the 1st defendant.
in the aforesaid one year.
As desired by him, he has been entombed in the property forming the first item of schedule I herein.
Both the companyrts below have decreed partition with ancillary reliefs.
His widow companytinued the motor service and managed the other properties with the help of the 2nd defendant as her manager and died on the 7th March, 1940.
They form Schedule 11 of the plaint.
He died on the 24th August, 1942, without any male issue and left him surviving a widow, Gomathi Ammal, and two daughters, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.
A person was appointed for doing pooja in respect of the said samadhi and daily pooja as well as special Gurupooja and annadhanam charity of feeding , etc.
Kanakasabapathi was a selfmade man and built up a flourishing motor bus service and also acquired substantial properties, movable and immov able.
200 of 1952.
The plaintiff accordingly brought the present suit originally as one for administration but later amended it as one for partition and separate possession of her half share in the properties.
For a proper appreciation of the points that arise on this appeal, it is desirable to set out the settlement deed Exhibit D 8 executed by Gomathi Ammal which reads as follows The properties described in schedule I herein are the properties which belong to the estate of my husband the late G. Kanakasabapathi Pillai Avargal aforesaid.
October 20.
The Judgment of the Court was deli vered by JAGANADHA DAS J. JAGANNADHADAS J. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition.
On her mothers death they both got into possession of all the properties including the motor service.
625 of 1945 in O. S. No.
R Ganapathy Iyer and K. Vaitheeswran for the appellants.
35 of 1944 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tinnevelly.
