Immovable property given to a female as maintenance grant.

This Second Appeal raises a question of competing title as between the alienees from the last maleholder Ramaswami’s widow, Seshamma, the appellants before me, and the contesting defendants in the Court of trial on the one hand and the settles from her mother-in-law, Ramamma, on the other, of whom the plaintiff in the trial Court, the first respondent before me, is the last surviving brother. It was the primary part of the plaintiff’s case in the plaint that there was a usufructuary mortgage by the plaintiff and his deceased brothers in about 1935 in respect of the suit properties in favour of the first defendant which became discharged before the date of suit, and that the first defendant was not entitled to remain in possession. It may be noted that this part of the plaintiff’s case was put forward as accounting for the defendant’s admitted possession for some years prior to suit. It was his further case that the first defendant got Seshamma, the sixth defendant, after her mother-in-law’s death to alienate the suit properties to defendants 2 and 4 clandestinely, under Exhibits D-1 and D-2, dated 23rd March, 1944, to the prejudice of the plaintiff who, along with his brothers, had become entitled when they were alive, and solely after their deaths, under the settlement deed from her mother-in-law in favour of the plaintiff and his brothers, Exhibit P-3, dated 17th May, 1916. The contesting defendants denied the usufructuary mortgage set up in the plaint, asserted their own title as vendees from Seshamma and put the plaintiff to proof of his title and his possession within 12 years prior to suit. The learned District Munsif of Amalapuram dismissed the suit upholding the defendants’ pleas, and the learned Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram on appeal decreed the suit ignoring the plaintiff’s case and version of the usufructuary mortgage and finding the plaintiff’s title as under Exhibit P-3 and possession within the statutory period as against the contesting defendants’ title under Exhibit D-1 and D-2 and as against their possession as lessees from Seshamma from 1935 to 1944 and as vendees from her thereafter which had been found by the trial Court and which was not found against by the lower appellate Court.

I am not prepared to disturb the finding of the lower appellate Court as to the plaintiff’s possession within the statutory period in support of which Exhibit P-4 series have been filed. The finding on the question of plaintiff’s title however stands, in my opinion, on a different footing. The contesting defendants are prima facie entitled as alienees from the widow of the last male holder who would be the person, if nothing more existed, competent to deal with the properties in suit. Their prima facie title is sought to be defeated by the plaintiff on whom undoubtedly the onus lies by means of the recitals of Exhibit P-3, the settlement deed in favour of himself and his brothers, by Ramamma, the mother of the last maleholder. Seshamma is not a party thereto. Neither she nor persons claiming under her can be held bound by its recitals. Even assuming the recitals of Exhibit P-3 to be true, I am of the view that they are insufficient to make out an absolute title in Ramamma which she could convey to the plaintiff and his brothers. The learned Subordinate Judge went too far, in my opinion, in holding that there was a binding arrangement between Seshamma and her mother-in-law Ramamma that the properties in suit should be held by the latter for an absolute estate pursuant to a direction of the last maleholder, even if such direction were the fact as recited in Exhibit P-3. The settlement attributable to the last maleholder according to the recitals of Exhibit P-3 does not suggest anything more than that in order that his mother Ramamma and his wife should have no disputes in future regarding the former’s maintenance the suit properties should be enjoyed by the former while the remaining half of his estate should be enjoyed by