JUDGMENT.-The legal representatives of the first plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the appellants. The suit was for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties.

2. The suit properties originally belonged to one Srinivasagam Pillai, He died in, 1909 leaving a registered Will, dated 12th January, 1909. This Will was probated in O.P. No. 291 of 1909, on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli. As per the Will the suit properties should be enjoyed by the testator’s daughter Kothai Grace Devadoss Ammal and on her death they should be taken by her children, plaintiffs 1 to 4 being her sons and plaintiffs 5 and 6 being her daughters. Appellants 4 to 6 are the legal representatives of the first plaintiff who died during the pendency of the first appeal. During the life-time of Kothai Grace Devadoss Ammal she made several alienations in respect of the suit properties and ultimately the properties comprised in the eight schedules appended to the plaint came into the hands of defendants 1 to 8. In December 1962, Kothai Grace Devadoss Ammal died and the plaintiffs in the suit, as the children of Kothai Devadoss Ammal, claimed interest in the suit properties.

3. The defence was, the properties in the hands, of Kothai Grace Devadoss Ammal were her absolute properties, having been got in a partition between herself and her brothers. Kothai Grace Devadoss Ammal sold the plaint-scheduled properties under Exhibit B-l, dated 17th March, 1941 in favour of one Arumugham and others. After changing many hands, the properties ultimately came into the possession of defendants 3 to 8. The aforesaid sale deed Exhibit B-l has been attested by plaintiffs 1 and 3. Exhibit B-l recited that Kothai Grace Devadoss was the absolute owner of the properties conveyed thereunder. Therefore, according to the defence, the plaintiffs are estopped from contending that Kothai Grace Devadoss Ammal had only a life-interest in the properties.

4. The first defendant is a direct purchaser from Kothai Grace Devadoss Ammal under Exhibit B-11 dated 29th February, 1948, in respect of Schedule 1 of the suit properties. It was alleged by him that plaintiffs 1 and 3 by their having attested Exhibit B-l sale deed made others believe that Kothai Grace Devadoss Ammal had an absolute interest in the suit properties and as such the plaintiffs are estopped from putting forth the present claim.

5. It has also been the contention of the defendants that they are bona fide purchasers for value in good faith, that they effected improvements to the properties and that therefore in any event the value of the improvements should be paid by the plaintiffs.

6. The trial Court decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court found that Kothai Grace Devadoss Ammal did not have absolute interest in the suit properties, that plaintiffs 1 and 3 are estopped from putting forth any claim in respect of the suit properties and that the one-third interest of the plaintiffs 1 and 3 in the suit properties passed on to the alienees viz-, defendants 3 to 8 . The lower appellate Court also found that there is no question of any estoppel as pleaded by the first defendant but that the first defendant is entitled to the value of the improvements effected by him in relation to Schedule 1 of the suit properties, viz., a sum of Rs. 9,371. It has also held that defendants 3 to 8 are also entitled to the value of improvements effected by them but that equities could be adjusted while allotting the properties. The result was the plaintiffs on record got a decree for declaration and possession in respect of plaint Schedules 1 and 2 and a two-thirds share in plaint Schedules 3 to 8.

7. Aggrieved by the decision of the lower appellate Court, the legal representatives of the first plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 to 4 have filed this second appeal. Thiru Parasaran, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the defendants are in the position of co-owners and that they cannot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document