The main legal point established is the application of estoppel and the validity of transactions under Hindu Law, which influenced the court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.

Kumaraswamy Sastri, J.

1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that the property mentioned in the plaint belongs to her, for possession of the property from the defendant, for the recovery of arrears of, rent and for mesne profits.

2. The plaint as amended sets out that the property set out in the plaint belonged to one Sandar Ramalinga Mudaliar who died on the 15th of December 1903, leaving a daughter Gnanasundarammal who obtained Letters of Administration on the 14th of March 1905, such letters being granted after contest by the reversioners, that by a registered deed of release dated the 9th of December 1905, the reversioners, to the estate including the defendants father who also represented the defendant released their interest in the properties left by Ramalinga Mudaliar in favour of his daughter Gnanasundarammal, that Gnanasundarammal transferred, the suit property to one Samarapuri Mudaliar on the 21st of February 1910 by a deed which, though called a deed of gift was for consideration and necessity, that the said deed was attested by the defendants father in token of his assent to the transaction, that Samarapuri Mudaliar mortgaged the suit property to one S.V. Subramania Aiyar for Rs. 600 on the 26th May 1916, out of which Rs. 250 was given to the defendant for his marriage and the rest for the payment of debts binding on the estate, that the defendant with full knowledge of the contents of the document attested the same, that by a registered deed of mortgage dated the 2nd of February 1920, Samarapuri Mudaliar mortgaged the property with the defendant for Rs. 200, that Samarapuri Mudaliar dealt with and enjoyed the propeity as absolute owner with the knowledge and consent of the defendant, that tie defendant, having with full knowledge of the above facts, accepted the said transaction and received benefits there under, is now ; estopped from denying the title of Samarapuri Mudaliar, that Samarapuri Mudaliar left a Will dated the 19th of March 1920 bequeathing the property to the plaintiff, that the defendant both by reason of his consent and estoppel and also by reason of the fact that he is not the nearest reversioner to the estate is not ntitled to question the plaintiffs title, t at the defendant is occupying a room in the house having agreed to pay a rent of one rupee per mensem, that when a notice to quit was sent to him, the defendant sent a reply denying tenancy and setting up title in himself and hence this suit.

3. The defendant filed a written statement stating that he is entitled to the suit property as the nearest reversioner, that Gnanasundarammal acquired no title to the property by reason of the grant of Letters of Administration to her, that the deed of release, even if executed, is not valid and does not bind him as his father predeceased. Gnanasundarammal and any act he did purporting to bind the defendant would be invalid, that the deed of gift executed by Gnanasundarammal is not valid and binding on the property, that he had no knowledge of the mortgage-deed dated the 2nd of February 1920, and was not a party to that transaction, that Samarapuri Mudaliar, though he borrowed Rs. 200 from the defendant, did not execute any mortgage-deed, that the Will of Samarapuri Mudaliar is not valid and binding and that he never agreed to pay any rent nor was he a tenant under the plaintiff. In his supplemental written statement filed in answer to the amended plaint, the defendant denies that there was any necessity or consideration for the deed of gift dated the 21st of February 1910 and that Rs. 250 was borrowed for the purpose of his marriage and states that the mortgage document of the 26th of May 1916 executed in favour of Subramania Aiyar by Samarapuri Mudaliar is only a nominal document.

4. The following issues were settled:

(1) Whether the release deed, dated 9th December 1905, relied on by the plaintiff is true, valid and binding on this defendant?

(2) Whether the deed, dated 21st Februar