A 2, both Thialaiachi and Karpagathachi made a free gift of some of the properties allotted to Thialaiachi.
By Ex.
The respondent resisted the suit claiming that under the partition each widow gave up her right of survivorship in respect of the properties allotted to the other, and companysequently on the death of Thialaiachi, the respondent as her daughter was entitled to take her share as her heir and to enjoy the same during the life of Karpagathachi.
D.W. 1 is unable to explain why Thialaiachi joined in this deed.
292 of 1958.
Under this partition, two veils of land were set apart for the maintenance of Sivasubramanias mother, to be enjoyed by her during her lifetime, and on her death, to be taken and enjoyed by the two widows in separate portions as mentioned in the partition lists.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 12, 1962 of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No.
B I, B 2 and A 5 giving to the legatees and particularly the respondent certain properties absolutely with full powers of alienation.
From time to time, Thialaiachi executed three wills, Exs.
A 22, regarding the proposed transfer of the patta in the name of the vendee was served upon Karpagathachi.
B 44, executed by both the widows relates to undivided properties, or whether it relates to properties as separately allotted to Thialaiachi.
By sale deed, Ex.
On appeal, the Madras High Court by its judgment dated January, 12, 1962 held that under the partition each widow gave up her life interest in the properties allotted to the other and companysequently Karpagathachi was number entitled to recover possession of the properties allotted to Thialaiachi, set aside the decree of the District Judge, and dismissed the suit.
B 5, Thialaiachi sold absolutely some of the properties allotted to her and a numberice, Ex.
1954, Thialaiachi died, and upon her death, the respondent took possession of the properties allotted to Thialaiachi under the partition of July, 1927.
On August 26.
On December 8, 1954, Karpagathachi instituted against the respondent the suit, out of which this appeal arises, claiming possession of the suit properties.
1927 and signed by both of them.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
in July 1927, they divided the bulk of the properties and each entered into separate possession and enjoyment of the properties allotted to her.
Karpagathachi and several other persons impleaded as party respondents in the appeal before the High Court number appeal under a certificate granted by the High Court to this companyrt under Art.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, V.S. Ramaswami lyengar and R. Thiagarajan, for the appellants.
By his judgment dated August 18, 1958, the District Judge, East Thanjavur, rejected the defendants companytention, and held that the division between the two widows was for companyvenience of enjoyment only, and decreed the suit in respect of the properties held by Thialaiachi under the partition of July, 1927.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, and R. Ganapathy lyer, for the respondent.
The partition is evidenced by two partition lists called partition deeds, Exs A I and B 45 dated July 14.
The two widows inherited the properties left by Sivasubramania.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J. One Sivasubramania Pillai died in the year 1924 leaving him surviving his mother.
two widows, Thialaiachi and Karpagathachi, and a daughter, Nagarathinathachi respondent herein born of Thialaiachi.
998 of 1963.
