1 which was a house in three blocks was divided between the respondent and his sister Apurupammal who were to take one share Ethirajammal who was to take another share and Andalammal who was to take the third share.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated February 23, 1951, of the Madras High Court in O. S. Appeal No.
1 to 5.
These disputes were settled by the two widows in pursuance of the advice of certain arbitrators who mediated between them.
The two cawnies of lands which were Serial No.
The Udayavar Temple by the sole trustee Bysani Krishnaiah Chetty was joined as defendant 5.
Item No.
126 and 127 which were shown as Serial No.
The settlement thus reached was recorded in writing on May 27, 1893 Ex.
3 were agreed to be sold, and it was settled that out of the sale proceeds the debts of the deceased Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar and his father should be discharged expenses incurred in obtaining the letters of administration should then be deducted along with the expenses of sale, and the balance should be divided equally between the two widows subject to a payment of Rs.
2, and houses and shops Nos.
The respondents suit was accordingly directed to go before the Official Referee for ascertainment of mesne profits claimed by him.
62, which, was Serial No.
It appears that the relations of the widow with her mother in law were embittered, and that led to disputes between them.
1,000/ to the mother in law in lieu of her jewels.
4 were agreed to be given to the maternal uncle of the deceases Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar, whereas the moveables which were shown as Serial No.
K. B. Naidu, for respondent No.
According to the respondent the said alienation was number binding on him and so he was entitled to recover possession of the said property free of any encumbrance or charge.
5 had to be divided half and half between the two widows.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is against this decree that the appellant has companye to this Court in appeal.
This settlement set out the properties companyered by it as Serial Nos.
To his suit the respondent impleaded the appellant Andalammal, Krishnasami Mudaliar, son of the said Apurupammal defendant 1 and Susila Bai Ammal daughter of Ethirajammal as defendants 2 to 4.
As a result of these findings the respondents appeal was allowed, the decree passed by the trial companyrt was set aside, and the claim for possession made by the respondent was decreed.
After her husbands death Manickammal obtained letters of administration to his estate from the High Court at Madras.
To this suit the respondent was impleaded as defendant 7.
204/1956.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and Naunit Lal, for .respondent No.
Manickammal died on October 18, 1941, whereas Rengammal died in June, 1921.
Keshva Aiyangar and M. S. K. Aiyangar, for the appellant.
January 27.
On the death of the widow Manickammal reversion fell open and that has given a cause of action to the respondent for his present suit.
Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar died issueless and was survived by his widow, his widowed mother, his sister Andalammal and the respondent and his sister Apurupammal who are the children of Ammakannu Ammal the second sister of Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar, and Ethirajammal the daughter of the third sister of Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar.
Sub sequently the said Manickammal and Rengammal, the widowed mother of the deceased Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar alienated the properties without any legal necessity.
13/1948.
In his suit the respondent alleges that after the death of Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar which took place on March 22, 1893, his property came into the possession of his widow Manickammal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent M. Raghava Mudaliar who claims to be the reversioner of Madhava Ramanuja Mudaliar.
