Gift of undivided interest in the coparcenary property.

JUDGEMENT :- The third defendant in O.S. No.896 of 1974 in the court of the Principal District Munsif of Pudukottai is the appellant in the second appeal. The plaintiff, a minor represented by his mother and next friend filed a suit for declaration and injunction or in the alternative for possession. The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant, who was said to have been leading a wasteful life. On 24-5-1973 the first defendant executed a release deed, marked as Ex. A.2, in favour of the other members of the joint family of which his father was the Kartha and obtained the suit properties, towards his share in the family estate. On the following day, i. e., on 25-5-1973, he executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit properties. Briefly stated, under the terms of the settlements, the income from the suit properties was to be enjoyed by the plaintiff, his parents and also by other heir of his father. The properties were not to be alienated by the first defendant or his wife, during their lifetime and after the lifetime of the first defendant, and on his attaining majority, the plaintiff would get an absolute interest over the properties, However, contrary to the deed, namely, Ex. A. 1 on 7-5-1974, the first defendant purported to revoke Ex. A.1 and on 15-5-1974, executed a registered sale deed in favour of the third defendant appellant of the suit properties for a sum of Rs. 9500. The said document has been marked as Ex. B.3. According to the plaintiff, the sale was illegal and void and not binding on him. The second defendant claimed to be a lessee from the first defendant of the properties under a document, dated 3-8-1973, marked as Ex. B.2. As defendants 2 and 3 were alleged to be attempting to trespass into the properties, the present suit was filed for declaration and injunction or in the alternative for possession.

2. The first defendant in his written statement contended that there were demands from the creditors and that a deed of gift was executed with a view to defraud the creditors. The settlement was said to be void, illegal and unenforceable. The validity of the settlement was also attacked on the ground that it had not been accepted. The first defendant alleged that the plaintiff's mother was wasting the properties without any benefit to the family and that he war, therefore, constrained to revoke the settlement deed.

The sale was stated to have been effected in favour of the third defendant for discharging his debts. The first defendant, therefore, resisted the grant of the prayer for declaration and injunction or possession. The second defendant claimed to be a lessee having paid the rental in advance and resisted the prayer for possession. The third defendant took up the stand that he was a bona fide purchaser of the suit properties for valuable consideration without any notice of any defect in title that he believed the representation made by the first defendant and purchased the suit properties for Rs. 9500, which was utilised by the first defendant for discharging his debts and that the suit was, therefore, not maintainable.

3. The learned District Munsif held that the settlement deed was void, illegal and unenforceable, that the revocation deed was valid since there was no acceptance of the gift on behalf of the minor plaintiff and that the sale in favour of the third defendant was valid. He found against the second defendant's claim. The result was he dismissed the suit and the plaintiff filed an appeal, which was disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge of Pudukottai. The appellate court held that the settlement deed was valid, that it was accepted, that the revocation was invalid and that the third defedant was not entitled to any benefit under the sale deed, especially after the lifetime of the first defendant, who died during the pendency of the appeal. The result was a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the reliefs claimed was passed. The present appeal