Judgement

SINHA J.: The only question for determination in this appeal, by leave of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, is whether the transaction dated the 18th July 1934 is binding on the plaintiffs, respondents in this Court. It is not disputed that if that transaction characterized as a family arrangement and evidenced by Ex. D-1 is binding on the plaintiffs, the suit must fail, as held by the trial Court in its judgment date the 15th July 1943.

If, on the other hand, the transaction is not binding on the plaintiffs, the suit must stand decreed, as held by the High Court by its judgment dated the 19th December 1946. The facts of this case may shortly be stated as follows:

2. Rangaswami Iyengar, who died in 1894, and Doraiswami Iyengar, who died in 1948 and who was the first defendant in the suit giving rise to this appeal were divided brothers. Rangaswami died leaving him surviving his widow Ranganyaki Ammal and his infant son Krishnaswami, who died in 1895-96 unmarried. Ranganayaki thus succeeded to her son s property as a limited owner. She held the property until her death on the 29th October 1933.

She was survived by her daughter Padmasani, who was married to Rajagopala Iye