(1) THIS appeal by special leave is at the instance of the first defendant A.S. Vidyasagar whose effort is to establish title to a house in his possession by two means, which would presently be discussed hereafter.

(2) ONE Meenakshi Iyer had three brothers two of whom had no male progeny, but there were females/daughters in their line. The 3rd one, however, had a son and a daughter named respectively as Kuppuswami and Kanthimathi. Meenakshi iyer died issueless in the year 1939. His widow Thulasi Ammal claimed his properties on the basis of a will dated 9/08/1931 which was contested by Kuppuswami. During the course of litigation document Ex. A-3 was recorded in the year 1942 whereby Thulasi Ammal released the properties she had received under the will in favour of Kuppuswami in consideration of Rs 12,000.00 in cash for her exclusive use. By means of the said release deed, she obligated Kuppuswami to give stridhana to the daughters of family in all the branches, separately categorised inclusive of Kanthimathi Ammal, the daughter in the fourth line.

(3) IT appears that Meenakshi Iyer during his lifetime had put Kanthimathi Ammal in possession of a house permissiv