Narayanaswamy Devaroyar vs Thangavelu Padayachi

Venkata Subba Rao, J.—On the death of Kuppuswmi in the year 1885 there appear to have been some negotiations regarding a provision

for suitable maintenance to his widow Alamelu. In 1890 Exhibit 1 executed by which the surviving coparceners gifted to Alamelu certain portions

of family property in lieu of her right to maintenance. She was in enjoyment of the property from that date till her death. The defendant as now in

occupation of it claiming under a will executed by Alamelu. The lower, courts have found that the will is genuine and that finding must be accepted.

The question to be decided, is, did Alamelu have an absolute interest in the property? On behalf of the plaintiff it is argued that the deed of gift was

unregistered and could consequently confer no title on Alamelu. This argument is perfectly correct. But Alamelu was in enjoyment of the property

for over the statutory period, in fact, for about 23 years. Exhibit I. is not operative as a deed of gift as it was not registered. But to ascertain the

nature and character of Alamelu''s possession, the deed may be looked at. See Varada Pillai v. Jeevarathnammal [1919] 43 Mad. 244. and

Madepena Appamma v. Chinnaveadu 1924 Mad. 292. In the deed what do we find? The recital is, that these lands were given to Alamelu with

absolute rights including the right to sell, make gilts and alienations. For ascertaining the nature of the right which she was setting up, the recitals in

the deed may be referred to, The document was properly admitted in evidence for this purpose and the finding that she perfected her title by

adverse possession is n it open to question.

Then it is said that in maintenance deeds the words ""with absolute rights etc"" ought to be construed in a manner different from the way in which

they ,would be construed if those words occurred in other documents. I do think, there is any warrant for this proposition. In fact in Jogeswar

Narain Deo v. Ram Chandra Dull [1896] 23 Cal. 670 and also in Muthu Venkatanarayan Ghetty v. Authi Panduranga Naidu [1919] M.W.N. 103

similar contentions were overruled.

In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.