Presumption regarding character of the property raised.

Sethuraman, J.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 524 of 1970 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem, are the appellants. There was one Balakrishna Chettiar, who had three sons Ramanathan Chettiar, Narayana Chettiar and Nandagopal Chettiar. There was a partition between Balakrishna Chettiar, and his sons on 1st March, 1925, under Exhibit B-2. It is enough to mention that with reference to the suit property it was allotted to Narayanan and Nandagopal. Balakrishnan is no more, and Ramanathan went away to Kumbakonam. Narayanan and Nandagopal were thereafter carrying on business in textiles in Salem. They became heavily indebted in or about the year 1939 and one of the creditors filed an insolvency petition I. P. No. 6. of 1939, against them. At that stage, there was an arrangement with the creditors and the creditors agreed to take 50 per cent, of the amount due to them. The said property along with some stock in trade belonging to Narayana and Nandagopal was transferred to one G. C. Subramaniam Chettiar for a sum of Rs. 16,500. Subramaniam Chettiar undertook to discharge all the debts by selling the stock in trade. He actually discharged all the debts. At the time of the transfer to Subramania Chettiar the suit property was valued at Rs. 10,000 and the stock in trade at Rs. 6,500.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his rights in the property. The plaintiff claimed that this property which was made over to Subramaniam Chettiar was subsequently transferred by him under two sale deeds of 26th June, 1943. The sale deed in favour of Nandagopal, the plaintiff's father is marked as Exhibit B-3. The plaintiff contended that this transfer was in pursuance of an understanding that the property was to be reconveyed by Subramaniam Chettiar in favour of Nandagopal and Narayanan. The plaintiff's further case was that there was a joint family business which was carried on by Nandagopal and himself and that in this business some money had been earned which went into the purchase of this property under Exhibit B-3. It may be stated here that one half of the property was conveyed in favour of Nandagopal and the other half in favour of Narayanan., The said Nandagopal initially executed a will dated 21st August, 1966, the will being marked as Exhibit B-8. The property was bequeathed by Nandagopal to Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam subject to certain dispositions for charitable purposes. Subsequently the said Nandagopal executed a settlement on 30th October, under Exhibit B-4. In the said settlement deed he cancelled the will and gave the property to the same Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam subject to the same dispositions, but subject however to his life-estate. In other words, there was a life estate in favour of Nandagopal, and the trustees of Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam were to take over the possession of the property after his death. The said Nandagopal died on 2nd September, 1970, and the plaintiff claimed that the property being the joint family property, Nandagopal had absolutely no power of disposition over it and that therefore he could not have validly executed the settlement deed Exhibit B-4. The prayer in the suit was for declaration that he was entitled to the suit property and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment thereof.

3. The defendants resisted the suit contending that though this property was originally transferred to Subramaniam Chettiar, subsequently, it was re-purchased by Nandagopal out of his own self-acquisitions. According to the defendants, the plaintiff and his father Nandagopal were not on good terms, the plaintiff having gone over to Madras and not having been in touch with his father for a long time. Their contention, therefore, was that Nandagopal had purchased the suit property out of his own self-acquisitions and that he had power of disposal over the suit proper