Order.-This application was originally filed for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.625 of 1945 and A.S.No. 200 of 1946 on the file of this Court, and has now to be treated as an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. These two appeals arose out of a suit O.S.No.35 of 1944 filed in the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Tirunelveli, in the following circumstances. One Kanakasabapathi Pillai died intestate on 24th August, 1942, leaving behind him his wife Gomathi and two daughters Rajagopala Ammal and Saraswathi Ammal. After Kanakasabapathi’s death his widow succeeded to all his properties, moveable and immoveable, including a flourishing bus transport business. On 4th November, 1943, Gomathi purported to execute a sale deed of 32 buses, their accessories and a charcoal shed which formed part of the bus business to K. Ramaswami Dass, the husband of Saraswathi Ammal. On the same day, she executed a deed of settlement under which she dedicated about 25 items of immoveable property for the maintenance and performance of Guru pooja every day at the Samadhi of her husband and for conducting Annadhanam on his. death anniversary every year. Out of these items seventeen had been inherited by her from her husband, while eight of them were purchased by her. Gomathi died on 7th March, 1944 and her two daughters became entitled to the properties left by Kanakasabapathi as well as Gomathi. Soon after her death Rajagopala. Ammal filed the suit for partition of properties moveable and immoveable, described in several schedules to the plaint. We are concerned only with Schedules I, II and III-c. There were two defendants. Her sister Saraswathi Ammal was the first and the second defendant was Saraswathi Ammal’s husband. Schedule I comprised the buses, etc., which had been sold by Gomathi to the second defendant in 1943 and the plaintiff attacked the sale as a sham and nominal transaction and brought about by fraud and undue influence practised upon Gomathi by the defendants. In respect of Schedule II her case was that all the 25 items belonged to and formed part of Kanakasabapathi’s estate and the endowment in favour of the Samadhi and Annadhanam was totally illegal and invalid. Five items described in Schedule III-c. (items 1 to 5) were claimed by her though the sale deeds in respect of these properties stood in the name of her sister, the first defendant, on the ground that they were purchased with the moneys belonging to the estate of her deceased father. The suit was tried by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli who passed a preliminary decree on 5th November, 1945. He held that the sale of Schedule I properties to the second defendant was sham, nominal and brought about by fraud and undue influence and therefore the properties were partible. With reference to Schedule II, he held that all the 25 items covered by the settlement deed formed part of the estate of Kanakasabapathi. He held that the dedication to the Samadhi was unlawful, but the dedication for Annadhanam was valid. He therefore confirmed the settlement deed in respect of items 1 to 17 and item 25 and declared that items 18 to 24 were available for partition. With regard to Schedule III-c, the learned Judge held that the consideration for the sales proceeded from the estate of Kanakasabapathi and hence they were partible. The defendants 1 and 2 filed an appeal to the High Court, A.S.No.625 of 1945. The plaintiff also filed an appeal A.S.No.200 of 1946. Both the appeals were heard together by a Division Bench of this Court and disposed of by a common judgment on 12th April, 1949. This Court confirmed the finding of the learned Judge as regards Schedule I properties. So far as the properties in Schedule II were concerned, this. Court held that the dedication completely failed in respect of all the items covered by the settlement deed and therefore held that all the 25 items of Schedule II were partible. This Court agreed w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document