J U D G M E N T

(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J.)

The plaintiffs in the suit in C.S.No.985 of 1993 on the Original Side of this Court, are the appellants in the above Original Side Appeal.

2.The suit in C.S.No.985 of 1993 was originally filed by Smt.Chebrolu Thayaramma, the mother of 1st appellant and also the wife of 6th appellant, for permitting her to institute the suit in forma pauperis and for recovery of possession of plaint A-Schedule properties, after removing the superstructure built by defendants, and to direct the 1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.14,55,000/-, the 2nd defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-, and the 3rd defendant to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as mesne profits and for future mesne profits.

3.During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff Smt.Chebrolu Thayaramma died and therefore, the appellants were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased 1st plaintiff and they became plaintiffs 2 to 7 in the suit in C.S.No.985 of 1993.

4.The suit property consists of A and B Schedules. Item 1 of suit A-

Schedule is an extent of 2 Cawnies and 12 Grounds in R.S.No.3799 in Teynampet, within Mylapore Sub-Registration District, Chennai. Item 2 of suit A-Schedule is an extent of 1 Ground in R.S.No.3798/B (now in R.S.No.3798/2) in Mylapore, Chennai.

5.The case as pleaded by the original plaintiff Smt.Chebrolu Thayaramma, as per the plaint averments, is as follows :

5.1.The suit property described as Items 1 and 2 in A-Schedule originally belonged to plaintiff's grandfather Sri Narayanasamy Chetty. 5.2.By a deed of family settlement dated 01.02.1937 executed by Sri Narayanasamy Chetty, life interest in respect of Items 1 and 2 of plaint A- Schedule property was created in favour of father of plaintiff, namely, Sri Lakshmiah Chetty and vested remainder was given in favour of plaintiff. The elder brother of plaintiff's father, by name Sri Achanna Chetty, was nominated as Trustee of the properties for the benefit of life estate holder in the said deed.

5.3.Plaintiff came to know that the said Sri Achanna Chetty was removed from the Trusteeship for alleged acts of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance. Plaintiff also learnt that her father Sri Lakshmiah Chetty effected some alienations in respect of the properties described in A-

Schedule to third parties without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's father, who is only a life estate holder, did not have any right to alienate the properties and the rights of plaintiff had neither accrued for her to take necessary action nor the plaintiff had knowledge of such transactions.

5.4.The life estate holder, namely the father of plaintiff, died on

14.12.1975 and from the said date, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the properties in terms of the family settlement deed dated 01.02.1937.

5.5.The 1st defendant is in possession of 2 Cawnies of land in R.S.No.3799 and the 2nd item of A-Schedule. From the Registration Records, plaintiff learnt that the 3rd defendant is in occupation of an extent of 2 Grounds and 192 sq.ft. Another extent of 12 Grounds is in the name of Smt.Dhanalakshmi Ammal, who purchased the said property from plaintiff's father Sri Lakshmiah Chetty in a Court auction. The 2nd defendant is the only known surviving heir of Smt.Dhanalakshmi Ammal, who purchased the property in Court auction.

5.6.Defendants are in occupation of plaint A-Schedule properties on the basis of a few registered documents which did not convey any right, title or interest to the defendants, as all those alienations were made by plaintiff's father Sri Lakshmiah Chetty and the transactions are void and collusive in nature. Since the plaintiff was not a party to the transactions, the alleged sales in favour of defendants and any other transactions are not binding on the plaintiff. Sri Lakshmiah Chetty, the father of plaintiff, who was only a life estate holder, is not competent to alienate the property and such alienations do not affect the title of plaintiff wh