A life estate holder cannot alienate property beyond their lifetime, and heirs include both male and female descendants.

JUDGMENT :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge, South Arcot Vallalar District, Cuddalore, in A.S.No.21 of 1993 dated 28.02.1994, in reversing the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Cuddalore, in O.S.No.158 of 1991 dated 17.12.1992.

2.The 1^st appellant is the 11^th defendant in the suit. The appeal pertains to the 7^th item of the suit schedule mentioned property. In all, 10 items were involved. The 11^th defendant is interested only with respect to the 7^th item. Even at the time of filing the appeal on 25.05.1994, the appeal was confined only to the 7^th item.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

4.The plaintiff presented O.S.No.158 of 1991 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to items 1 & 2 and for recovery of possession for item Nos.3 to 10. Her case was that the suit properties belonged to one Pichandi Padayachi. He executed a settlement deed on 06.10.1933, in favour of Ramalinga Padayachi and his wife Dhanakodi Ammal. The settlement deed was accepted and acted upon by the donors and the donees. They also took possession of the property. The second donee Dhanakodi Ammal predeceased her husband Ramalinga Padayachi. Ramalinga Padayachi passed away on 15.12.1990. The plaintiff claimed to be the only daughter of Ramalinga Padayachi and Dhanakodi Ammal.

5.Placing reliance upon the settlement deed dated 06.10.1933, she pleaded that Ramalinga Padayachi and Dhanakodi Ammal did not have the right to alienate the property, but had the right to enjoy the same during their lifetime. She pleaded that after their lifetime, the properties was to be enjoyed by their . As she was the onlyof the couple / donees, she pleaded that she is entitled to the suit properties as the vested remainder.

6.The first defendant is the second wife of Ramalinga Padayachi. Defendants 2 to 5 are the daughters of the first defendant. Ramalinga Padayachi and Chinnayal, the first defendant had another daughter by name Dhanavalli. She had passed away. Hence, her daughters were impleaded as defendants 6 & 7 to the suit. The 8^th defendant is the husband of Jayakodi, the 6^th defendant. During the lifetime of Ramalinga Padayachi, he had alienated the property in favour of one Appavu Gounder. His sons were impleaded as defendants 9 & 10. Similarly, Ramalinga Padayachi alienated the properties in favour of defendants 11 to 16 and they were in possession of the properties. The plaintiff claimed the relief of recovery of possession against them. She urged that the defendants 1 to 8 do not have any substantive right or title over the suit items 1 & 2. As they were threatening to trespass into the property, the plaintiff came forth with the relief of injunction with respect to item nos.1 & 2.

7.She pleaded that Ramalinga Padayachi sold an extent of 35 cents in R.S.No.416/1 and 416/3 to Appavu Gounder by way of a sale deed dated 21.03.1950. Out of the 35 cents, Appavu Gounder sold an extent of 13 cents in R.S.No.416/3 to Maharajan, the 12^th defendant. Appavu Gounder sold another extent of 6 cents in favour of Selvaraj, the 13^th defendant on 26.07.1986. Similarly, Appavu Gounder executed another sale deed in favour of Balasubramaniam and Amirdhavalli, the defendants 14 & 15, on 27.07.1986 in R.S.No.416/3 for an extent of 7 cents. Appavu Gounder had retained only 9 cents of land out of the 35 cents of land which he had purchased from Ramalinga Padayachi. On his death, the defendants 9 & 10 were in possession of the same. The plaintiff pleaded that the sale in favour of Appavu Gounder and defendants 12 to 15 will not enure beyond the lifetime