Patanjali Sastri, J.-

This is a second appeal preferred by defendants 6 and 7 from a decree of the District Judge of Coimbatore affirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of the same place whereby the title of the respondents 1 to 4 to certain immoveable properties was declared, and the appellants were directed to deliver possession of them to the said respondents with mesne profits.

One Nanjappa Goundan was the original owner of the properties, and on his death many years ago his widow Palaniammal inherited the properties and was in enjoyment thereof till the 10th January, 1931, when she died. Thereupon disputes arose regarding succession to the properties of Nanjappa between the fifth respondent, who was the first defendant in the suit who claimed title to be the nearest sapinda and reversioner of Nanjappa on the one hand and defendants 8 and 9 who are the grandsons of Palaniammal’s sister and set up title as devisees under her will on the other. The first respondent’s father, Palani Goundan, who, it has been found below, and the finding has not been questioned before us, was Nanjappa’s step-sister’s son and as such his true reversionary heir under the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (II of 1929) as interpreted by the Privy Council (vide Mst. Sahodra v. Ram Babu1) did not put forward any claim of succession to Nanjappa when his widow died in 1931. On the other hand, according to the defendants, he took an active part as one of the arbitrators in effecting a settlement of the disputes between the first defendant and defendants 8 and 9. Though Palani Goundan’s participation in the settlement has been found against, the disputes between the other claimants appear to have been settled by the defendants 8 and 9 acknowledging the validity of the first defendant’s claim to Nanjappa’s properties and the first defendant delivering to them, in consideration of such acknowledgment, some of those properties. In pursuance of that settlement the first defendant made statements on the 26th January, 1931, before the Revenue Inspector of Vaniputhur consenting to patta being transferred in the name of defendants 8 and 9 in respect of the lands given to them as aforesaid.

Thereafter the first defendant continued in undisturbed possession and enjoyment of the remaining properties of Nanjappa till he sold some of them to the first appellant (6th defendant) for Rs. 11,000 on the nth January, 1940, and some others to the second appellant (7th defendant) for Rs. 33,000 on the 21st May, 1942, under sale deeds marked as Exs. D-5 and D-6 respectively. During all these years, neither Palani Goundan till he died in 1934, nor his sons, the first respondent and the deceased father of respondents 2 to 4, set up any rival claim to Nanjappa’s properties in the hands of the first defendant or of defendants 8 and 9 until they brought the present suit on the nth January, 1943, the last day of limitation prescribed for the suit, for a declaration of their title to all the properties left by Nanjappa and for recovery of such of those properties as were respectively in the possession of the first defendant and his alienees including the appellants.

Various pleas were raised in answer to the suit including a plea of estoppel based on the part alleged to have been played by Palani Goundan in bringing about the settlement of 1931 and his subsequent acquiescence in the enjoyment of the properties by the first defendant as the ostensible owner. All the pleas were overruled by the Courts below which upheld the plaintiff’s right to the properties claimed, and the suit was accordingly decreed so far as the appellants were concerned, the other defendants having entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the appellants are entitled, as bona fide transferees for value from an ostensible owner, to seek the protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

That section reads thus:

“Where with the consent, exp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document