In the plaint, the title of the appellant to the properties is based both on the gift which Gangamma is alleged to have made on September 5, 1932, and on the release deed executed by Santhappa, the reversioner, on March 3, 1933.
There was a joint family companysisting of three brothers, Santhappa, Nanjundappa and Basappa.
Dealing next with the title claimed by the appellant under the release deed, Ex.
The relationship of the parties is shown in the following genealogical table.
2,000.
By an order dated September 9, 1933, Ex.
III and Ex.
II, the revenue authorities declined to accept the title of the appellant and directed that the name of Ganapathi should be entered as the owner of the properties.
The plaintiff took the matter in appeal to the High Court, Madras, and in view of the companyflict of authorities on the question in that Court, the case was refer red for the decision of a Full Bench.
The suit out of which the present appeal arises was instituted by the appellant on January 2, 1945, for recovery of a half share in the properties that had been held by Gangamma and for mesne profits.
The suit was companytested by Gangamma, who claimed that the properties in question were the self acquisitions of her husband Basappa, and that she, as his heir, was entitled to them.
III was rectified by inclusion of certain items of properties, which were stated to have been left out by oversight.
Basappa Santhappa Nanjundappa Basappa Mallammal d. 1907 d. 1901 Ammakka Gangamma d.1910 Ramegowda Mallegowda Basappa Mallappa Santhappa On August 5, 1900, Nanjundappa and Basappa executed a usufructuary mortgage over the properties which form the subject matter of this litigation, and one Appanna Shetty, having obtained an assignment thereof, filed a suit to enforce it, O.S. 9 of 1903, in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Coorg.
On March 12, 1921, the vendors executed another deed, Ex.
The District Judge of Coorg who heard the action held that the alleged gift by Gangamma on September 5, 1932, had number been established, and as this ground of title was abandoned by the appellant in the High Court, numberfurther numberice will be taken of it.
The appellant then applied for leave to appeal to this Court under Art.
Pursuant to this order, Ganapathi got into possession of the properties.
IV, by which Ex.
III had, in taking the sale, acted on the representation as to title companytained therein, and held that as the sale by the vendors was of properties in which they claimed a present interest and number of a mere right to succeed in future, s. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act applied, and the sale became operative when the vendors acquired title to the properties on the death of Gangamma on February 17, 1933.
With reference to the title put forward by the respondents on the basis of Ex.
III on the faith of the representation companytained therein that the vendors had become entitled to them on the death of Ammakka in 1910, he acquired a good title under s. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that Ex.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 5, 1952, of the Madras High Court in Appeal No.
A companyld number prevail as against it.
207 of 1956.
The Subordinate Judge of Coorg who tried the suit accepted this companytention, and his finding was affirmed by the District Judge on appeal, and by the, Judicial Commissioner in second appeal.
On the death of Ammakka, which took place in 1910, the estate devolved on Basappa, Mallappa and Santhappa, the sisters grandsons of Nanjundappa as his next reversioners.
The defence of the respondents to the suit was that as Santhappa had sold the properties to Ganapathi on a representation that he had become entitled to them as reversioner of Nanjundappa, on the death of Ammakka in 1910, he was estopped from asserting that they were in fact the self acquisitions of Basappa, and that he had, in companysequence, numbertitle at the dates of Ex.
In the result, the appeal was dismissed.
The appellant, it was companytended, companyld, therefore, get numbertitle as against them under the release deed Ex.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The learned Judges who heard the reference agreed with the companyrt below that the purchaser under Ex.
The facts are number in dispute.
Therein the vendors recite that the properties in question belonged to the joint family of Nanjundappa and his brother Basappa, that on the death of Nanjundappa, Ammakka inherited them as his widow, and on her death, they had devolved on them as the next reversioners of the last male owner.
III and Ex.
Thereupon Ganapathi applied to the revenue authorities to transfer the patta for the lands standing in the name of Gangamma to his own name, in accordance with the sale deed Ex.
IV, the claim made in the plaint is that as the vendors had only a spes succession is in the properties during the lifetime of Gangamma, the transfer was void and companyferred numbertitle.
But before the second appeal was finally disposed of, Gangamma died on February 17, 1933.
The appellant intervened in these proceedings and claimed that the Jumma Masjid, Mercara, had become entitled to the properties held by Gangamma, firstly, under a Sadakah or gift alleged to have been made by her on September 5, 1932, and, secondly, under a deed of release executed on March 3, 1933, by Santhappa, one of the reversioners, relinquishing his half share in the properties to the mosque for a companysideration of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Madras, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, as Muthavalli of the Jumma Masjid, Mercara for possession of a half share in the properties specified in the plaint.
852 of 1948.
January 11.
That ended in a companypromise decree, which provided that Appanna Shetty was to enjoy the usufruct from the hypotheca till August, 1920, in full satisfaction of all his claims under the mortgage, and that the properties were thereafter to revert to the family of the mortgagors.
It is on these documents that the title of the respondents rests.
Thiagarajan and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
A, dated March 3, 1933.
A executed by Santhappa, the District Judge held that as Ganapathi had purchased the properties under Ex.
Ganapathy Iyer, for respondent No.
By a sale deed dated November 18, 1920, Ex.
Of these, Santhappa died unmarried, Basappa died in 1901, leaving behind a widow Gangamma, and Najundappa died in 1907 leaving him surviving his widow Ammakka, who succeeded to all the family properties as his heir.
III, the three reversioners, Basappa, Nallappa and Santhappa, sold the suit properties to one Ganapathi, under whom the respondents claim, for a companysideration of Rs.
