One Periaswami Gurukkal had a son Guruswami by his first wife. Periaswami married the plaintiff (Sellammal) in the suit when he was old and when plaintiff was about 18 years of age. At the time of his second marriage to the plaintiff, he executed in her favour a registered sale-deed Exhibit A-1, dated 20th June, 1947, reciting a consideration of Rs. 200 in cash, and conveying items 1 to 4. Subsequently he fell out with the plaintiff and there were misunderstandings between them. Thereafter under Exhibit A-4, dated, 6th October, 1954, he cancelled Exhibit A-1. He followed this up by executing on 9th October, 1954, a document Exhibit A-5 a settlement deed in favour of Guruswami Gurukkal his first wife’s son conveying all his properties including the properties covered by Exhibit A-1. Under Exhibit A-6, dated 18th July, 1955, Periaswami Gurukkal proceeding on the footing that Exhibit A-5 had become inoperative, executed another settlement deed giving Items 5 to 18 to the plaintiff and some other items to his daughter-in-law, Guruswami’s wife. Guruswami died on 3rd August, 1955, leaving behind him surviving his widow (defendant) as his sole heir.

The plaintiff filed the suit out of which this Second Appeal has arisen seeking for declaration of her title to the suit properties, for possession and for future mesne profits and costs, the suit properties being Items 1 to 18 mentioned above. The plaintiff relied upon the sale-deed Exhibit A-1 in her favour, and the subsequent settlement deed Exhibit A-6, dated 18th July, 1955, executed in her favour by her husband. The defendant urged that Exhibit A-1 was an invalid sale-deed, because the properties were worth much more than the consideration therefor, that it was really an alienation of joint family properties by Periaswami Gurukkal to his second wife, in consideration of her marriage, and that such a document would not be binding on the other coparceners. Next, she contended that Exhibit A-5 was a valid settlement deed giving the entire properties to Guruswami. She also contended that Exhibit A-6 was an invalid document. The trial Court found that Exhibit A-1 was supported by consideration but was not supported by necessity, and that therefore it would be valid only to the extent of Periaswami Gurukkal’s share in Items 1 to 4. The trial Court also found that Exhibit A-5 was valid and that Exhibit A-6 was inoperative. After observing that the plaintiff has succeeded only in respect of her getting half rights in the suit Items 1 to 4 as per the sale-deed and has failed in all other respects, and that her position was therefore that of an alienee from a coparcener of an undivided right in certain specific properties, the trial Court found that since the suit had not been filed as a suit for a general partition of plaintiff’s share either as a heir of Periaswami or an alienee from Periaswami, no relief could be given to the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was therefore dismissed with half costs. The plaintiff appealed to the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirappalli. The learned Subordinate Judge confirmed the trial Court’s view that Exhibit A-1, though it was supported by consideration was not supported by necessity, and therefore it would not bind the half share of Guruswami. He also supported the trial Court’s finding that Exhibit A-5 was acted upon and that Exhibit A-6 was inoperative. However he was of the opinion that though the suit was filed for declaration and possession, having regard to the circumstances of the case and in particular the relationship between the parties, it was proper as a measure of equity to allow the plaintiff half a share in Items 1 to 4 and he directed partition and separate possession of this half share.

Against this decision, the present Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant urged that even assuming that the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed to all the plaint Items 1 to 18, she could, wi