JUDGMENT :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

Prayer in S.A.No. 1337 of 2007: Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No. 28 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam, Vellore District dated 28.02.2007 reversing the well considered decree and judgment made in O.S.No. 342 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudiyattam, Vellore District dated 11.10.2006.

Prayer in S.A.No. 1338 of 2007: Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No. 27 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam, Vellore District dated 28.02.2007 reversing the well considered decree and judgment made in O.S.No. 368 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudiyattam, Vellore District dated 11.10.2006.

1. The plaintiffs in a suit OS.No. 368 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam, are the appellants. The sole respondent is the plaintiff in a suit OS.No. 342 of 1995 on the file of the very same Court. Both the suits were presented for declaration of title and for injunction. The short narration of the facts essential for these appeals are:

2. The property originally belonged to two brothers namely, Dhanancheiya Naidu and Sampath Naidu. Subadrammal, the 1st defendant in the suit OS.No. 368 of 1995 was their sister. Out of natural love and affection, the brothers settled the property in favour of the sister by way of a registered settlement deed in Document Number 2956 of 1968 dated 30.07.1968. As per the first part of this document, the settlee/sister was entitled to enjoy the property absolutely and the subsequent clause read that she is entitled to hold the property during her life time and in case there are no issues, it will go back to the legal heirs of Dhanancheiya Naidu.

3. The said Subadrammal sold the property in favour of the respondent/Rajasekar on 22.02.1991. It is the case of Rajasekar that the defendants/appellants Kasturi, Sridar and Giri sought to dispossess him on 19.04.1995. Therefore, he presented the suit OS.No. 342 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam. The appellants in both the appeals pleaded that what had been settled in favour of the 1st defendant in OS.No. 368 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam was only a life estate and therefore Subadrammal is not entitled to sell the property to Rajasekar. They further alleged that the 2nd defendant sought to trespass into the suit property and therefore they came forward with the aforesaid suit.

4. The parties went to trial and the plaintiff, Rajasekar examined himself as PW-1 and one Arangammal as PW-2. Similarly, the defendants Giri and Muthumanickam examined themselves as DW-1 and DW-2. 11 documents were filed on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent and 7 documents were filed on behalf of the defendants/appellants.

5. To complete the narration, it is necessary to point out that during the life time of Subadrammal, she had filed a suit OS.No. 275 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur for declaration of title and for injunction. The suit had been decreed ex parte and therefore, the plaintiff in the suit OS.No. 342 of 1995 relied upon the same in order to argue that they are entitled for declaration since their vendor’s title had already been declared.

6. The learned Trial Judge framed a common judgment in both the appeals. The issue that he framed for answering is “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and injunction as prayed for?”

7. The learned Trial Judge interpreting the document held that what had been given to Subadrammal was only a "life estate" and that she can alienate only that right in the property. Since Rajasekar had purchased only the life estate, he is not entitled for declaration of title.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the decree, the sole respondent to this appeal, filed A.S.Nos.27 and 28 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyattam. The lower Appellate Court had framed the fo