Subrahmanyam, J.- This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O.S. No. 150 of 1949. The defendants are the appellants.

The suit was for a declaration that the sale Exhibit B-7 by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was not binding on the reversioners to the estate of the first defendant’s husband Thanga Goundan. He died in June, 1944. The plaintiff is Thanga Goundan’s brother’s son. It is not denied that he is the presumptive reversioner to Thanga Goundan’s estate. The property sold was a house in Coimbatore. It was sold for Rs. 7,000. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the sale was not binding on the reversioner and hence passed a, decree.

The defendants pleaded that the house was the self-acquired property of the first defendant and that even if it formed part of the property inherited by her from her husband, the sale was for necessity binding on the reversioners. On both the points, the learned Subordinate Judge recorded findings against the defendants.

The first point for determination is whether the property was purchased by the first defendant out of her own funds and for her own benefit benami in the name of her husband Thanga Goundan. The sale-deed Exhibit B-8, dated 2nd September, 1936 was for Rs. 500. The consideration consists of three sums of Rs. 350, Rs. 100 and Rs. 50 reserved with the vendee to discharge certain debts due by the vendor to certain named creditors. Exhibit B-22, the account-book maintained by Thanga Goundan shows that these creditors were paid by him. The first defendant seeks to prove that the moneys which her husband paid were her moneys. In corroboration of her evidence on that point; she relies on the fact that she deposited in 1930 Rs. 500 in the Selva Vridhi Bank. Exhibits B-16 and B-17 show, however, that the deposit was completely withdrawn by her on 18th June, 1931. The fact that she had Rs. 500 in 1931 does not necessarily lead to the inference that she was keeping that sum with her somewhere, for investment for the purchas in 1936. It is true that her husband Thanga Goundan was adjudged an insolvent in 1925. The adjudication was annulled in 1933. Exhibit B-4, a mortgage executed by Thanga Goundan in 1937, shows that he had borrowed Rs. 400 in 1934 on a promissory note. The mortgage was executed in discharge of the debt due on the promissory note. It is the first defendant’s own case that four persons contributing moneys as shareholders started a bank in 1931 and placed the first defendant’s husband in charge of the bank. He was being paid remuneration by way of bonus on profits. On 23rd May, 1936 he was paid Rs. 300 as bonus. The bank was housed in a part of Thanga Goundan’s residential house in Kattur. The bank paid Rs. 40 per annum as rent. On 23rd May, 1936 Rs. 50 was paid to Thanga Goundan as arrears of rent. The evidence stated above makes it clear that Thanga Goundan had assets of his own out of which the house now in dispute could have been purchased by him for his own benefit in 1936.

The presumption that the house was purchased for his benefit, arising from the fact that the sale-deed stands in his name is strengthened by the circumstance that Exhibit B-7 itself in tracing the vendor’s title to the property, states that her husband had purchased the house on 2nd September, 1936 that he was in enjoyment of it as absolute owner and that she became entitled to the house subsequent to his death.

The sale Exhibit B-7 is dated 25th February, 1949. The plaintiff issued the notices, Exhibit B-2 to the first defendant and Exhibit B-13 to the second defendant in March, 1949 impeaching the alienation as not binding on the reversioners and threatening to take steps to protect the reversioners’ interests unless the alienation was acknowledged by the defendants to be not binding on the reversioners. In the reply, Exhibit A-1 given by the second defendant, he said that the house purchased by him belonged to the first defendant as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document