Donor cannot later repudiate the gift and bequeath the property to the Mutt.

1. Second Appeal No.1583 of 1984 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.146 of 1981, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. Second Appeal No.527 of 1991, is filed by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.1799 of 1984, on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli.

2. The relevant facts in both these Second Appeals could he summarised thus:

“The subject-matter of both these Second Appeals is one and the same. The property belonged to Alamelu Ammal, wife of late V.K. Subramania Iyer. She settled the property in favour of Janaki Ammal, who is none other than her sister-in-law, i.e., her husbands sister. In the settlement deed she settled not only the plaint schedule property in favour of her sister-in-law, but also assigned the mortgage right worth about Rs. 16,000. It is stated in that document that she is executing the settlement deed due to her special affection towards her and also for the reason that she was being maintained by her and also under the hope that she will continue to maintain her till her life time. She also declares that from the date of Gift, Janaki Ammal be in possession of the property as absolute owner with full right and she further declares that from that date onwards the executant has ceased any right over the same. She also declares that in regard to the mortgage right, Janaki Ammal shall receive the entire amount with interest from the mortgagor and realise the same. She further declares that the property is free from all encumbrances and the executant is also not indebted to anyone. She further states that she is executing the settlement deed on condition that Janaki Ammal will maintain her till her life time. The original document relating to the plaint property and also the original mortgage deed were also handed over to the donee. Within a period of five years after the settlement deed, Janaki Ammal died, and on 19.1.1958, Alamelu Ammal is alleged to have executed a Will in favour of Sree Kanchi Kamakoti Peedathpathi Mut (hereinafter referred to at Mut). In that Will it is stated that she had executed a settlement deed in favour of Janaki Ammal on condition that she will maintain her and that the donee is dead, Janaki Ammal could not maintain her and therefore, the settlement deed did not come into effect. Since the document has not come into effect, there is no necessity for cancelling the same and by abandon caution she is executing the Will bequeathing all the properties in favour of Mut.”

3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.146 of 1981, from which S.A.No. 1583 of 1984 arises, is the daughter of Janaki Ammal. claiming herself as the owner of the property filed the suit for recovery of possession from the tenants. It is seen that the legatee under the Will filed an application to get himself impleaded in the suit, but the same was not allowed. Subsequently, Mut filed a suit as O.S.No. 1790 of 1984, on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, for declaration of its right over the property and for consequential reliefs.

4. The earlier suit O.S.No. 146 of 1981 was dismissed by the trial court and confirmed in appeal. The main reason for dismissal of the suit was that the defendants are cultivating tenants and their names have been recorded by the record officer, and therefore eviction cannot be ordered by a civil court. In that suit, the defendants have taken a contention that the plaintiff therein is not the owner of the property and she has no title to the property, in view of the Will executed by late Alamelu Ammal in favour of Mut. The concurrent judgment is assailed in S.A.No. 1583 of 1984, on the ground that even if the defendants are cultivating tenants, decree for possession should have been granted, since title of the plaintiff has been denied, and there is no necessity to go back to the authorities under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act for getting possession. The civil court is competent to order possession in view of the denial of title, eve