From the Judgment and Order dated 8 2 71 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S. A. No.
The suit was regarded as one falling under Art.
In other words, the deed of cancellation was in effective in law.
The appellants raised a plea of adverse possession and the suit being barred under Art 144 of the Limitation Act.
On merits the Trial Court came to the CONCLUSION that the deed of settlement itself was number a genuine deed, but even if it were, the suit which had been filed on 22nd August 1962 was barred under Act 144.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. The only question that arises for companysideration in this Appeal is whether the Respondents Plaintiffs suit was barred by Limitation under Art.
A3 whereby she endowed the suit properties to a temple in the village, the deity therein being her family deity She companystituted herself as the first Trustee for her life and after that her husband and mother were to be the trustees and after their demise, respondents heirs were to be the trustees.
When the matter was taken in appeal, the Appellate Court took the view that the deed of settlement was valid and genuine and in fact it effected a legal endowment in favour of the deity, the original settlor having divested herself of the ownership companypletely.
Five years later, i. e. On 21st January 1930, she purported to cancel and revoke the trust settlement , by getting the Deed of Cancellation registered.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1517 of 1971.
One Muthammal, who was the absolute owner or the suit properties executed a deed of settlement dated 17th May 1925 Ea.
S. Ramamurthi and M. K. D. Namboodri for the Respondents.
Thereafter certain mortgages were executed by her in respect of the properties and later on the properties were sold by her to the father of the appellants Nos.
1 and She died on 7th October 1960.
134 B of the Limitation Act.
134 of the Limitation Act and since the suit had been filed thin 12 years from the death of the settlor, Muthammal, it was held to be within time, and the plaintiffs suit was decreed.
The plaintiffs claiming to be the trustees of the endowment, filed a suit on 22 8 1962, claiming possession of the properties challenging the alienations that were made in favour of the appellants father.
Ram Kumar and Mrs. J. Ramachandran for the Appellants.
887/66.
The appellants appealed to the High Court and in Second Appeal, the High Court companyfirmed the first Appellate Courts decree.
