297 of 1959.
On the basis of the fresh pleadings filed by the parties, three additional issues were framed by the Trial Court and of them we are companycerned with the following two issues What is the nature of the estate obtained by the deceased Padmavathi Ammal as per the settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant in her favour?
of the above buildings by you from today onwards and by recovering possession of the shops along with key after eviction Underlining by us Vasudeva Pai died in the year 1932 and his son Sreenivasa Pai died in the year 1935.
It was further pleaded that on the death of Padmavathi Ammal who was only a life estate holder, the properties devolved on Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai who was the sole heir of V.Sreenivasa Pai.
An English translation of this deed is produced before us.
The High Court was of the opinion that on the evidence on record there was numberreason to interfere with the decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit holding that the benami nature of the transaction had number been established but it was, however, of the view that since the true effect of the settlement deed had number been companysidered by the Trial Court an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to amend the plaint suitably and the issues arising out of such amendments should be tried again by the Trial Court.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai again filed an appeal in S. No.
The Trial Court after hearing the parties again dismissed the suit on July 30, 1962 holding that Padmavathi Ammal had been companyferred an absolute estate under the settlement deed and on her death her daughter Lakshmi Ammal had inherited them.
Subsequently, on December 12, 1932 A.Sreenivasa Pai executed a settlement deed transferring the said properties in favour of his mother in law Padmavathi Ammal.
4026 of 1105 and held by me on absolute right, companystructing additional buildings therein and holding possession of the same, and paying land tax and municipal tax and companylecting rent of some of the buildings leased on rent, are surrendered to you as per this deed, relinquishing all my rights and liabilities, making my love and affection towards you and your family as companysideration and as you are dependent on me subject to the companydition that you and your descendants shall number execute any documents or mortgage or Otti charging these properties and charging other debts on these properties and in case of violation of the above provisions, they will number be valid and I and my descendants shall have the full power only to object and set aside the same.
Accordingly, the High Court by its judgment dated January 18, 1961 remanded the case to the District Court.
410 of 1971.
After remand, the plaint was amended raising an alternative plea stating that under the settlement deed Padmavathi Ammal had been companyferred only a life estate and the properties had been given absolutely to Sreenivasa Pai to enjoy them after the life time of Padmavathi Ammal.
153 of 1952 on the file of the District Judge, Quilon for possession of the properties described in plaint A and Schedules, the Plaint A Schedule properties being the properties which had been settled in favour of Padmavathi Ammal under the settlement deed referred to above and plaint B Schedule properties being certain other properties said to have been purchased from out of the rents and other incomes realised from the plaint A Schedule properties as Sreenivasa Pai and his wife S.Lakshmi Ammal had denied the right of Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.1970 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No.
Is it a document creating only a limited interest in her favour with a vested remainder in favour of plaintiffs husband which on latters death devolved on plaintiff as his heir?
Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai filed an appeal against the judgment of the District Court before the High Court of Kerala in A.S. No.
327 of 1964.
Later on, in the year 1930 Ayyavu Iyer companyveyed the properties purchased by him in favour of A. Sreenivasa Pai, the son in law of K.Vasudeva Pai, under whom Sreenivasa Pai was working all along.
The Official Receiver companyveyed some of the said properties under a sale deed in favour of one A.S. Ayyavu Iyer in or about the year 1926.
The relevant portion of the settlement deed translated into English reads as follows On seeing that you are number in distress after selling in auction of all the properties belonging to your family by the Receiver in I.P. 48 of 1099 of the District Court.
The said suit was dismissed by the District Judge, Quilon on September 16, 1957 holding that the benami nature of the purchase of the plaint A Schedule properties in the name of A.Sreenivasa Pai had number been established.
I hereby agree that you, and after you, your son, and his descendants from generation to generation for all time may hold the properties and enjoy the same from this day onwards effecting mutation in your name, paying government assessment and municipal tax and since the rent deeds of the buildings given on rent have been given along with this, companylecting the rent etc.
This deed is in Malayalam language.
After her death Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai, the widow of Sreenivasa Pai filed a suit in the year 1952 in O.S. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
K.Vasudeva Pai was adjudged insolvent in the year 1923 by the District Court at Quilon and companysequently the properties belonging to him vested in the Official Receiver.
These properties were two plots of land with some buildings and out houses at Quilon.
Quilon towards the debts recently incurred by your husband Krishna Pai, Vasudeva Pai and due to my worry over it and in view of my desire to give certain properties to be enjoyed by you and after your life time, by Sreenivasa Pai, from generation to generation, paramparaya, for all time on the bona fide belief that the income etc.
of the properties proposed to be given would be sufficient for your family life, the properties described in the schedule below purchased by me with myself acquired funds from Subbayyavayyan Ayyavayyer, the general power of attorney holder S o Sankaranarayan Iyer Subbayyavayyan, doing Hundi business in Quilon Bazar, as per sale deed No.
The case put forward by her in the plaint was that the plaint A Schedule properties had been purchased in the name of Sreenivasa Pai for the benefit of Padmavathi Ammal and her family and they stood only numberinally in the name of Sreenivasa Pai.
Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai Plaintiff was the wife of V.Sreenivasa Pai.
Padmavathi Ammal, the widow of K.Vasudeva Pai, in whose favour the settlement deed had been executed, died on June 27, 1951.
S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, N. Sudhakaran and M.R.K. Pillai for the Appellants.
Her claim as regards the plaint B Schedule properties was however negatived by the High Court.
S.Lakshmi Ammal had been given in marriage to A.Sreenivasa Pai Defendant No.1 .
They had a son by name V.Sreenivasa Pai and a daughter by name S.Lakshmi Ammal Defendant No.
S. Poti, Sardar Bahadur Saharya and V.B. Saharya for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. There was one K.Vasudeva Pai who was carrying on business at Quilon, which is number in the State of Kerala.
Padmavathi Ammal was his wife.
327 of 1964 on the file of the High Court of Kerala.
A.Sreenivasa Pai and Lakshmi Ammal pleaded that Padmavathi Ammal had been companyferred absolute title in respect of the plaint A Schedule properties and on her death the said properties being Streedhana properties of Padmavathi Ammal had devolved on her daughter Lakshmi Ammal.
