J U D G M E N T

[

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. The action that set in motion the instant dispute was in the year 1947, when a mother transferred property inherited at the death of her husband, in one form to her two sons and in another, to her daughter. Some forty-odd years later, the daughter’s husband filed a suit in respect of such property, in 1993. The Additional District Munsiff, [“Trial Court”] decided the matter in 1999. The Additional District and Session Judge, [“First Appellate Court”] returned a decision on the First Appeal in 2002. The Second Appeal was decided by the High Court, [Digitally signed by] in 2012. It is against this order and Signaturej Nuot Vderigfiedment in Second Appeal that the present civil appeal has been preferred.

Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2024.02.16

19:21:18 IST Reason:

3 “Impugned judgment”

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. It would be necessary to advert to the facts underlying the present dispute. 3. On 10^th July 1947, one Thayammal executed a settlement deed, [“First Settlement Deed”] granting rights in her property to her two sons namely Raghavulu Naidu and Chinnakrishnan @ Munusamy Naidu, [“Munusamy”] for their lives and thereafter to the former’s two daughters namely Sar