JUDGMENT :- The first defendant is the appellant. She unsuccessfully resisted the suit filed by the first respondent herein as plaintiff for possession of the suit properties together with past and future mesne profits. The plaintiff's case was that his father, the second defendant, effected a settlement deed Ex. A-2, dated 21-12-1959, in respect of the suit properties in favour of the first defendant nominally in view of the land ceiling legislation, that the said settlement deed was not intended to be acted upon, that as he was born on 2-5-1960, shortly after the settlement deed, he is entitled to avoid the said settlement deed executed by the father, that even otherwise the second defendant had no power to execute a settlement deed in favour of the first defendant in respect of the coparcenary properties, and that the first defendant cannot claim any title on the basis of the said settlement deed. It was also his case that the alienation made by the first defendant of some properties in favour of the third defendant cannot also be valid as the first defendant had herself no title to the suit properties, that the first defendant, notwithstanding the fact that she had no legal tit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document