K.Govindarajan, J.: Defendants 1 to 8 who succeeded before the trial Court and suffered decree in A.S.No.277 of 1987, filed the above appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.527 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore for partition of the suit properties into 4 equal shares and allotment of three shares to the plaintiff and for a direction to the appellants herein to render true and proper accounts regarding the rents realised from the suit ‘A’ schedule property for 3 years prior to the filing of the suit and directing them to pay 3/4th share due to the plaintiff and also for mesne profit.

3. It is not in dispute that that the suit property originally belonged to the mother of the plaintiff, Sara Bibi, who executed a settlement deed on 5.11.1952 in favour of her daughter who is the elder sister of the plaintiff, Fathima Bibi. Under the said document, she was given life estate and the vested remainder was given to her husband and unspecified heirs. Stating that the restrictions imposed in the document from getting absolute right by Fathima Bibi is contrary to Mohammedan law and also it is invalid and unenforceable, the plaintiff has come forward with the plea that Fathima Bibi is his sister, got the property absolutely and so after her death on 4.12.1974, as his brother, he is entitled 14/24 shares in the suit property. Sara Bibi also got 1/6th share and husband of Fathima Beevi, Kamaludin got 1/4th share. The balance that was available was 14/24th share and the plaintiffs succeed to the said share as residuary. It is also stated that when Sara Bibi, the mother died, her share was also taken by the plaintiff with the result the plaintiff became entitled to 3/4th share and Kamaludin, the husband of Fathima Bibi owned only1/4th share. Defendants 1 to 8 could are the children of Kamaludin through his 2nd wife. On that basis, the plaintiff has come forward with the plea that defendants 1 to 8 could claim only to the said share, namely, 1/4th share. Defendants 9 to 15 are the tenants under the suit property. It is also stated that Kamaludin, the husband of Fathima Bibi executed a settlement deed on 13.7.1981 in favour of defendants 1 to 8. The plaintiff has come forward with the above suit on the basis of the said pleadings.

4. The 2nd defendant filed written statement which was adopted by defendants 3 to 5. The 10th defendant submitted to decree. Defendants 1, 6 to 15, though received notice, remained absent and thereby they were set ex parte.

5. According to defendants 2, 3 to 5, in view of the settlement dated 5.11.1982 executed by Sara Bibi, Kamaludin, the husband of Fathima Bibi and his heirs have become the absolute owners of the property as Fathima Bibi under the settlement deed was given right only to enjoy the properties, i.e., to enjoy the usufruct. It is denied that Fathima Bibi is the absolute owner, as the restrictions cannot be sustained as it is against the Mohammedan law. From the written statement we are able to see that Kamaludin also died on 23.3.1982 before filing of the suit.

6. Though the suit is also with respect to ‘B’ schedule property, we are not dealing with the same in this appeal as the appeal is only with respect to ‘A’ schedule property.

7. The trial Court considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, found that the case of the plaintiff that Fathima Bibi got absolute right under the settlement deed dated 5.11.1952 cannot be sustained and so the plaintiff is not entitled to any share as claimed in the suit. With reference to the claim of the 2nd defendant on the basis of adverse possession and also the defence that the suit is barred by limitation, the Trial Court negatived such claims. It is also found that the settlement deed dated 13.7.1981 executed by Kamaludin is valid in law and the plaintiff has no right to question the same. With respect to ‘B’ schedule property, the trial Court found that no such property is in existence and so the plaintiff cannot sustain the suit with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document