Alienation done binding to the extent of share of alienor.

In this second appeal by the chief contesting first defendant who has failed in both the Courts below, the short question for consideration is whether the settlement deed Exhibit A-1, executed in favour of the plaintiff by her husband just before the marriage, is wholly void, or valid as against his share in the properties covered by the deed. The Courts below have upheld the plaintiff’s claim of a half share in the properties, declared her right to the same, and decree with mesne profits. The suit properties, an extent of one acre and 80 cents in R.S. No. 1812 and a house in Vedakrishnapuram village, Chidambaram Taluk, stood in the names of the plaintiffs’ husband Muthulinga Padayachi. His brother is one Palanivelu Padayachi, father of defendants 5 to 8 in the suit who have not contested the plaintiff’s claim. The finding of the Courts below is that, on the plaintiff’s parents insisting upon a settlement of property being made in her favour, as a consideration for the plaintiff marrying him, Muthulinga Padayachi settled the properties on her under the deed Exhibit A-1 dated 30th June, 1943. The Courts below have accepted the evidence that the settlement was a condition for the plaintiff marrying Muthulinga Padayachi. The further finding is that the plaintiff was a major at the time of the marriage negotiations and settlement. The marriage was celebrated a week after the execution of the document and there is evidence that she had been put in possession of the properties settled and was in enjoyment of the same. Some years after the execution of the settlement deed, Palanivelu Padayachi, the brother of the settlor, instituted the suit, O.S. No. 282 of 1951, on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Chidambaram for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties, contending that they are joint family properties, and that the plaintiff’s husband, in whose name the properties stood, had no exclusive right in the properties. The plaintiff and her husband were both made defendants in that suit. They made common cause in the suit, and it was pleaded therein that the plaintiff’s husband, Muthulinga Padayachi, had been in possession of the properties till the settlement and thereafter his wife the 2nd defendant in that suit, had been in possession of the same, and that the properties were separate properties of Muthulinga Padayachi. It was held in that suit that the properties were joint family properties of the brothers. Muthulinga Padayachi and Palanivelu Padayachi, and following the finding a decree for partition and possession of a half share in the properties was granted on 29th November, 1952, in favour of Palanivelu Padayachi. As a result of the partition proceedings, Palanivelu Padayachi got the western 90 cents of the suit first item. Subsequently Muthulinga Padayachi, ignoring the rights of his wife under the settlement deed, sold away the eastern 90 cents to the present appellant, the first defendant in the suit out of which the second appeal arises, under Exhibit B-3, dated 12th April, 1954. Defendants 2 and 3, claim under the first defendant and the second appeal relates only to the 90 cents, the subject of conveyance by the plaintiff’s husband in favour of the first defendant. It may, here, be stated that the first defendant is an attestor to the settlement deed Exhibit A-1.

The contention of the appellant, with reference to the settlement, is that it was a gift of joint family properties and, therefore, wholly void, void even as against the settlor. It is said that the settle, the plaintiff, got no title under the document even in respect of the settlor’s half share in the properties, so the subsequent alienation by the settlor in favour of the first defendant prevailed over the claim under the settlement deed. The Courts below concurrently find that the settlement deed is not a gift, pure and simple, but a conveyance for consideration and, therefore, binding on the settlor to the ex