The limited owner cannot convey a larger right than possessed, and the right of claim of title accrues to the plaintiffs only after the demise of the life estate holder.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.21/2008 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub Court, Villupuram dated 11.12.2015 in reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. 380/2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Ulundurpet dated 22.09.2005.)

1. In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2015, passed in A.S.No.21/2008, on the file of the 2nd Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2005, passed in O.S. 380/2002, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“(a).Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court by overlooking the fact that the period of limitation for institution of suit arises only after the demise of the last life estate holder and not from the date of sale by the life estate holder to the respondents herein?

(b).Whether the transaction made by a life estate holder could outlive the executants and whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in holding that Ex.B2 & B3 are unsalable in view of lapse of time?

(c).Whether the limited owner could convey a larger right than what he/she possesses?”

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties in the matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

5. The plaintiffs have laid the suit against the defendants for the relief’s of declaration that the sale deeds dated 25.03.1997, executed by the plaintiffs' mother in favour of the defendants are invalid and directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit properties and also for mense profits.

6. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs, the suit properties are the joint family properties of the first plaintiff, his brother Duraikkanu and their parents namely, Chinnathambi and Kuppayeeammal and it is put forth that they had entered into a registered partition deed dated 01.07.1965, where under, the properties described in the A schedule to the above-said partition deed had been allotted to the plaintiffs' parents giving them life estate over the same and after their life time, the said properties have to be equally divided between the first plaintiff and his brother Duraikannu and according to the plaintiffs, Chinnathambi and Duraikannu had died long back and Kuppayeeammal died on 05.08.1997 and after the death of Kuppayeeammal, they came to know that the defendants had fraudulently obtained two sale deeds in their favour from Kuppayeeammal in respect of the suit properties, however, Kuppayeeammal being only the life estate holder, the sale deeds executed by her in favour of the defendants are invalid in the eyes of law and accordingly, the plaintiffs repeatedly demanded the defendants to hand over the possession of the suit properties and as the defendants failed to accede to their demand, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to institute the suit against the defendants for appropriate relief’s.

7. The defendants have resisted the plaintiffs' suit contending that the suit properties are the separate properties of Kuppayeeammal and she had mortgaged the same on 24.12.1970, in favour of the first defendant with respect of the first item and subsequently had executed two sale deeds dated 25.03.1997 in respect of the suit properties in favour of the defendants and accordingly, it is only the defendants who are in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties since then and furthermore, the defendants had also perfected title to the suit properties by way of adverse possession and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

8. In support of the plaintiffs' case PWs 1 and 2 were