Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 59 (MAD)

G. Bhanumathi v. Ratan Kawar and another

2001-01-18

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2001
ORDER: Since the parties are same in both the suits and the reliefs sought for are in respect of the same property, common judgment is pronounced. 2. Suit in C.S. No.443 of 1996 is filed for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for directions to the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the property, to hand over all the documents of title relating to the property including the original of the settlement deed dated 30.1.1952 and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 per month as damages/ mesne profits from the date of plaint till the date of handing over of vacant possession. 3. The suit in O.S. No.2998 of 1991 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, has been transferred to the file of this Court for trial along with C.S. No.443 of 1996 as per the order in Tr.Appln. No.231 of 1998, dated 17.2.1998, and it was taken on file in Tr.C.S. No.187 of 1998. This suit has been filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and workmen from raising any construction whatever on the schedule mentioned property. 4. The plaint averments relating to C.S. No.443 of 1996 are as follows: The suit property originally belonged to one Muniammal, the maternal great grand-mother of the plaintiff. Though the defendant built the existing house in the suit property in the later half of the year 1991, it was in defiance of the lawyer’s notice and the orders of the City Civil Court, Madras. The suit property was settled by the said Muniammal in favour of her daughter Jayalakshmi Ammal, and thereafter in favour of the plaintiff, under settlement deed dated 30.1.1952, and the said Jayalakshmi Ammal was put in possession thereof simultaneously. As per the terms of settlement, Jayalakshmi Ammal will be entitled only to enjoy the property during her lifetime without any power of alienation, and after her demise, the property shall be taken by the second beneficiary absolutely, who will have full powers of alienation. The said second beneficiary is the plaintiff. Contrary to the said terms of the settlement deed, Jayalakshmi Ammal executed a sale deed dated 12.3.1950 in favour of the defendant, she also handed over all documents of title to the defendant. The said sale deed contains false recitals. The said second beneficiary is the plaintiff. Contrary to the said terms of the settlement deed, Jayalakshmi Ammal executed a sale deed dated 12.3.1950 in favour of the defendant, she also handed over all documents of title to the defendant. The said sale deed contains false recitals. When the plaintiff made a visit to the suit property on 4.7.1990, the house in the suit land was not in good condition. On 26.9.1990, the plaintiff on enquiry came to understand that Jayalakshmi Ammal had sold away the suit property. The plaintiff applied for and obtained a certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.3.1990 and then issued a lawyer’s notice dated 19.10.1990 to the purchaser the defendant herein and also to Jayalakshmi Ammal. The plaintiff had never seen the alleged Will dated 21.1.1963. The said Will has no validity in view of the prior settlement deed dated 30.1.1952, and it has not been probated. The decree passed in O.S. No.312 of 1963 filed by the said Muniammal for declaration was set aside in the appeal in A.S. No.195 of 1965 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and no further appeal had been filed. Neither the said Jayalakshmi nor the defendant herein could ever question the settlement deed. The said Jayalakshmi Ammal and the defendant herein have colluded and brought about the sale deed dated 12.3.1990 and demolished the previously existing house, in the suit property. When the plaintiff came to know that the defendant was making fast preparations to construct a new building in the suit property in active co-operation with Jayalakshmi Ammal, the plaintiff filed O.S. No.2998 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court against the defendant herein and Jayalakshmi Ammal for a permanent injunction restraining them from raising any construction. The said Jayalakshmi Ammal had passed away on 9.9.1995, and thereafter, according to the settlement deed, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. Hence, the present suit has been filed. 5. The defendant filed a written statement with the following allegations. The claim of the plaintiff to the suit property is disputed. The defendant, who is a bona fide purchaser, purchased the vacant site from Jayalakshmi for a valuable consideration. The title traceable to the vendor Jayalakshmi to the site is by virtue of Jayalakshmi acquiring title by adverse possession. 5. The defendant filed a written statement with the following allegations. The claim of the plaintiff to the suit property is disputed. The defendant, who is a bona fide purchaser, purchased the vacant site from Jayalakshmi for a valuable consideration. The title traceable to the vendor Jayalakshmi to the site is by virtue of Jayalakshmi acquiring title by adverse possession. Jayalakshmi’s title to the property was without reference to the alleged settlement deed. Jayalakshmi never claimed or traced her title through the settlement deed. During the life time of Muniammal, the original owner, Jayalakshmi was in sole enjoyment of the property. Jayalakshmi did not contest the suit in O.S. No.312 of 1963 and hence it is clear that she is the owner of the suit property. The decree obtained in A.S. No.195 of 1965 is collusive one. The said Muniammal was not alive when the said appeal was disposed of. The recitals in the sale deed dated 12.3.1990 are true. After the vacant site was purchased, the defendant put up construction, which was started in June, 1990 and completed in October, 1990. The plaintiff has not taken any steps to prevent the defendant from putting up the construction. The defendant put up construction spending money on the bona fide belief that she has title to the property. There are no bona fides on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is estopped by her conduct and lack of bona fides from asserting title to the property. The plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of delivery of possession, but can only be compensated in terms of money. Suit property is/ was only a vacant site. The claim of Jayalakshmi as well as the plaintiff under the settlement deed of Muniammal are not sustainable, as Jayalakshmi perfected the title of the property and without reference to the settlement deed. No original settlement deed was handed over to the defendant. The reference to the will cannot affect the prescriptive title of Jayalakshmi. Plaintiff is pretending ignorance of the sale in favour of the defendant. There was collusion between Jayalakshmi and the plaintiff. The report of the Commissioner only shows that the construction was over long back and the house was occupied by the defendant and her family members. The title of the defendant cannot be impeached. The plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. There was collusion between Jayalakshmi and the plaintiff. The report of the Commissioner only shows that the construction was over long back and the house was occupied by the defendant and her family members. The title of the defendant cannot be impeached. The plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. The suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. In the additional written statement filed by the defendant, it is contended that the suit property is the absolute property of the defendant as per Sec.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The instruments executed by the said Muniammal vested an absolute right of the defendant. The defendant has a pre-existing right in the schedule mentioned property, she being the only legal heir of the said Muniammal. Under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, the property was held by the defendant as on 6.3.1965 when the said Muniammal died, and the defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff has no right or interest to claim in the property. 7. The averments in the plaint in Tr.C.S. No.187 of 1998 are as follows: The other averments, excepting the following are similar to the averments mentioned in C.S. No.443 of 1996. The said Jayalakshmi Ammal is the second defendant herein. The second defendant totally suppressed the very factum of the decree passed in A.S. No.195 of 1965, in the aforesaid sale deed dated 12.3.1990, though it was she who had vehemently contested the said appeal. Both the defendants had colluded and brought about the sale deed and demolished the house standing on the suit property. Some workmen were on the suit property to dig a foundation for raising a new building. If the defendants are allowed to get away with the construction of a new building on the suit property, the plaintiff’s rights would be irreparably damaged. Hence the suit. 8. In the written statement of the first defendant, it is alleged that the purchase of the suit property by the first defendant under registered sale deed dated 12.3.1990 from the second defendant is admitted. The first defendant was made to believe that the second defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property, which was based on the collusion between the plaintiff and the second defendant. First defendant did not demolish the house. The will was duly executed. The first defendant was made to believe that the second defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property, which was based on the collusion between the plaintiff and the second defendant. First defendant did not demolish the house. The will was duly executed. The second defendant perfected her title over the suit property by continuously and uninterruptedly enjoying the same for more than 12 years as absolute owner. The second defendant in collusion with the plaintiff have cheated the first defendant. The plaintiff will become the owner after the death of the second defendant. Hence the plaintiff cannot prevent the first defendant to improve the property. First defendant has already construed a building in the ground floor and is not going to make any further construction. Only after completion of the building the first defendant received the injunction order on 11.6.1991. Therefore, the suit may be dismissed with exemplary costs. 9. The following issues were framed in C.S. No.443 of 1996: (1) Whether the Settlement deed dated 30.1.1952 executed by Muniammal is not valid and enforceable? (2) Whether the decree dated 4.5.1966 in A.S. No.195 of 1965 on the file of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is not final and binding on the defendant? (3) Whether sale deed dated 12.3.1990 executed by Jayalakshmi Ammal in favour of the defendant is valid and enforceable? (4) Whether Jayalakshmi Ammal had acquired title by adverse possession, as pleaded by the defendant? (5) Whether the defendant was a bona fide purchaser? (6) To what relief? 10. In Tr.C.S. No.187 of 1998, the issue that arises for consideration is: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction, as prayed for?” 11. Issues 1 to 6 in C.S. No.443 of 1996 and issue in Tr.C.S. No.187 of 1998. The above two suits have been filed by the same plaintiff seeking for declaration, possession and mesne profits in the first suit while she sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any construction in the schedule mentioned property, in the second suit. 12. The above two suits have been filed by the same plaintiff seeking for declaration, possession and mesne profits in the first suit while she sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any construction in the schedule mentioned property, in the second suit. 12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would agree that the schedule mentioned property originally belonged to one Muniammal, the great grand-mother of the plaintiff, who executed a settlement deed on 30.1.1952 as found under Ex.P-1, wherein she gave life estate to her daughter Jayalakshmi, second defendant in Tr.C.S. No.187 of 1998 and thereafter in favour of the plaintiff absolutely with full powers of alienation; that the said Jayalakshmi was put in possession of the property immediately; that the second defendant without any power of alienation has executed a sale deed on 12.3.1990 in favour of the first defendant, containing false recitals; that on the death of the second defendant on 9.9.1995, the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the suit property, as per the terms of the Will and thus she is entitled for a declaration that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff; that the first defendant who came into possession by virtue of the aforesaid sale deed executed by the second defendant, should be directed to hand over vacant possession and the documents of title relating to the property also and to pay damages for unlawful use and occupation of the suit property; that when the plaintiff came to know about the said illegal sale, she issued a notice to the defendants; that despite the receipt of the same, the first defendant attempted to proceed with the unlawful construction in the suit site and thus the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction in the schedule mentioned property. 13. 13. The learned counsel for the defendant purchaser would contend that she was a bona fide purchaser of a vacant site for a valuable consideration that she purchased the site from the second defendant, who was the absolute owner of the property; that the second defendant acquired title to the property by adverse possession; that her title to the property was without any reference to the settlement deed relied upon by the plaintiff; that a registered will was also executed by the original owner Muniammal in favour of her daughter Jayalakshmi, the second defendant herein on 21.1.1963; that by virtue of the same also Muniammal had full right to execute a sale deed in favour of the first defendant; that the suit filed by Muniammal to set aside the settlement deed in O.S. No.312 of 1963 was decreed in her favour; that an appeal field in A.S. No.195 of 1965 was a collusive one in order to defeat the right of the first defendant; that they have suppressed the judgment rendered in A.S. No.195 of 1965; that the first defendant purchased only a vacant site wherein she commenced the construction in June, 1990 and completed the construction in October, 1990, spread over for five months, that the commencing and completion of construction was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff, who often used to make visit to the property; that the claim of the plaintiff under the settlement deed of Muniammal is not sustainable, as the second defendant perfected the title of the property and without reference to the settlement deed, the second defendant was entitled to the suit property in respect of which she had full power of alienation and accordingly she had sold the property to the first defendant, that the same cannot be questioned by the plaintiff; that the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the property on 6.3.1965 when Muniammal died and thus the first defendant has pre-existing right in the schedule mentioned property as being the only legal heir of the said Muniammal and therefore, under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, the property held by the first defendant as on 6.3.1965 has become her absolute property and hence both the suits have got to be dismissed. 14. 14. P.W.1 the husband of the plaintiff in his evidence would depose that the suit in O.S. No.2998 of 1991 was filed by him in the City Civil Court, Chennai for permanent injunction. As on the date of the suit the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property after the demise of Jayalakshmi, and the defendant was claiming right as per the sale deed dated 12.3.1990. The said Jayalakshmi had life interest in the suit property with no power of alienation. Muniammal settled the suit property in favour of Jayalakshmi Ammal and the plaintiff, giving life estate to her daughter Jayalakshmi Ammal. After the demise of Jayalakshmi Ammal, the plaintiff shall become the absolute owner. The original settlement deed is with the defendant. Ex.P-1 is the certified copy of the settlement deed. Muniammal filed a suit in O.S. No.312 of 1963 to declare the said settlement deed as sham and nominal, which was decreed as prayed for. The plaintiff who was one of the defendants in that suit filed A.S. No.195 of 1965 and it was allowed. Ex.P-2 is the certified copy of the judgment in that appeal. The certified copy of the decree is Ex.P-3. There was no further appeal by Jayalakshmi Ammal. Ex.P-4 is the registration copy of the sale deed executed in respect of the property purchased by the defendant from Jayalakshmi Ammal. On 26.9.1990 he came to know about the sale. Later the defendant started to lay foundation in the suit property, after demolishing the superstructure. Legal notice was issued to the defendant and Jayalakshmi Ammal and Ex.P-5 is the said notice, along with the acknowledgment by the defendant. Ex.P-6 is the unserved notice, relating to Jayalakshmi Ammal. As the defendant was constructing a new building in the suit property, P.W.1 filed a suit in O.S. No.2998 of 1991 for permanent injunction. Interim injunction was granted and an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed, who inspected the suit property and filed his report. The Commissioner’s report and plan are Exs.C-1 and C-2 respectively. When O.S. No.2998 of 1991 was pending, Jayalakshmi Ammal died. Ex.P-7 is the death certificate of Jayalakshmi Ammal. After her death, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property as per the settlement deed. 15. The Commissioner’s report and plan are Exs.C-1 and C-2 respectively. When O.S. No.2998 of 1991 was pending, Jayalakshmi Ammal died. Ex.P-7 is the death certificate of Jayalakshmi Ammal. After her death, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property as per the settlement deed. 15. D.W.1 in his evidence would state that the defendant, who is the wife of D.W.1 purchased the property in March, 1990, after perusing the necessary documents. The sale price of the property was Rs.18,000. Only the land was purchased. The construction was completed in October, 1990. When the Advocate Commissioner made inspection, D.W.1 was staying with his family at Chengalvarayan street. He came to know about the appeal by the plaintiff, after occupying the premises. As advised by his advocate that partial interest becomes absolute interest under Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, he did not pursue the appeal. Jayalakshmi Ammal was in possession of the said land for a long time; plaintiff is valuing the property at Rs.12 lakhs only to extract money from the defendant. 16. The plaintiff in these two suits claims title to the suit property and other reliefs alleging that her great grand-mother Muniammal who was the original owner of the property executed a settlement deed on 30.1.1952 as found under Ex.P-1 giving life estate to her daughter Jayalakshmi Ammal, the second defendant in Tr.C.S. No.187 of 1998 and after her, to the plaintiff absolutely. 17. Admittedly, the suit property originally belonged to the said Muniammal. Even during the life time of Muniammal she filed a suit in O.S. No.312 of 1963 challenging the validity of the settlement deed executed by her for a declaration that it was sham and nominal. A perusal of Ex.P-2, a certified copy of the judgment rendered by the principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in A.S. No.195 of 1965 would reveal that the abovesaid original suit was filed by Muniammal against Jayalakshmi Ammal, the second defendant herein and the plaintiff, who was a minor then; that the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff therein declaring that the settlement deed executed by Muniammal was sham and nominal; and that the present plaintiff aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial Court preferred an appeal in A.S. No.195 of 1965 in which the judgment of the trial Court was reversed. 18. 18. It would be clear from the said judgment rendered in A.S. No.195 of 1965 that the learned District Judge after elaborate discussion has come to the correct conclusion that the settlement deed executed by Muniammal was a true and genuine transaction and was given effect to. It is pertinent to note that the said Jayalakshmi Ammal, second defendant herein, who was the vendor of the suit property, which was sold to the defendant- purchaser herein, was also a defendant in that suit. No, second appeal has been preferred from the judgment of the First Appellate Court. Thus the judgment-rendered by the District Court confirming the validity of the settlement has become final. Since the plaintiff and the said Jayalakshmi, the predecessor in title of the defendant- purchaser Ratan Kawar were parties to the proceedings questioning the validity of the settlement, the decision of the First Appellate Court, which has become final is absolutely binding on the second defendant Jayalakshmi Ammal and the defendant purchaser Ratan Kawar, who claims title to the property only through the said Jayalakshmi Ammal. Therefore, at this juncture, the defendant- purchaser cannot question the genuineness or validity of the settlement deed, as found Ex.P-1. 19. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the defendant- purchaser cannot claim a better title than her predecessor in title, in view of the finding in Ex.P-2 judgment that the settlement deed executed by Muniammal was true and genuine. The settlement deed executed by Muniammal reads as follows: “.....subject to the following terms and conditions, namely, (1) The first beneficiary Jayalakshmi Ammal will be entitled only to enjoy the said property during her life time without any power of alienation such as gift sale mortgage and etc., out of the rental income of the said property she will pay the municipal taxes and quit rent, effect the necessary repairs and take the balance of income for herself absolutely; (2) After the death of the first beneficiary the said property described in the Schedule hereunder shall be taken by the 2nd beneficiary absolutely. The 2nd beneficiary will have full powers of alienation and will likes...... This deed of settlement further witnesseth that the settlor has this day put the first beneficiary in possession of the said property and the first beneficiary shall hold and enjoy the said property and take the rents and profits thereof.....” 20. The 2nd beneficiary will have full powers of alienation and will likes...... This deed of settlement further witnesseth that the settlor has this day put the first beneficiary in possession of the said property and the first beneficiary shall hold and enjoy the said property and take the rents and profits thereof.....” 20. From the above terms and conditions in the settlement deed, it would be abundantly clear that what was given to the said Jayalakshmi was only a life estate with full restraint on her power of alienation and the plaintiff shown as the second beneficiary was given the vested reminder along with full power of alienation. It is not disputed that the second defendant Jayalakshmi died on 9.9.1995 and the certificate of death has also been filed as Ex.P-7. 21. From the very recital in Ex.P-1 settlement deed, it is seen that the said Jayalakshmi was put in possession on the date of the execution of the settlement deed and that she has been all along in possession and enjoyment and on her death, the life estate given to her came to an end, and as provided in the settlement deed, the vested reminder in favour of the plaintiff has come into force. The truth and validity of the settlement deed executed by Muniammal was the subject matter in the aforesaid proceedings and it has been found to be true and genuine and the decision has also become final and is binding on the plaintiff and the second defendant Jayalakshmi Ammal. As stated above, it would be binding on the defendant- purchaser also who claims title to the suit property through the said Jayalakshmi. At this juncture, the defendant- purchaser cannot be permitted to challenge the validity or the truth of the settlement deed, which has already come into force. Thus it would be clear that the plaintiff has proved her title to the suit property. 22. Apart from denying the title of the plaintiff, the defendant- purchaser has claimed title to the suit property alleging that Jayalakshmi executed a sale deed on 12.3.1990 as found under Ex.P-4 and she has purchased the same for a valuable consideration. The registration copy of the said sale deed executed by Jayalakshmi in favour of the defendant purchaser is marked as Ex.P-4. The registration copy of the said sale deed executed by Jayalakshmi in favour of the defendant purchaser is marked as Ex.P-4. It is contended by the defendant- purchaser that Jayalakshmi was fully entitled to the suit property in view of a registered will executed in her favour by the original owner Muniammal on 21.1.1963. The said sale deed as found under Ex.P-4 also refers to a registered will dated 21.1.1963, executed by Muniammal in favour of Jayalakshmi. 23. Though it is admitted by the defendant- purchaser’s side that the original documents were handed over at the time of the sale transaction, the Will alleged to have been executed by Muniammal in favour of Jayalakshmi has not been filed in the Court. No materials were also placed before the Court to show that any probate was issued regarding the said Will. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that when Muniammal executed a settlement deed on 30.1.1952 giving life estate to her daughter Jayalakshmi, who was also put in possession on the very day of the execution of the settlement deed, there was no need for executing a Will on 21.1.1963 as alleged by the defendant’s side. 24. It is highly interesting to note that the second defendant herein viz., Jayalakshmi, the predecessor in title of the only contesting defendant- purchaser was the first defendant in the suit filed by Muniammal in the year 1963 seeking for a relief to set aside the settlement deed, and the appeal filed from the judgment of the trial Court was decided only on 4.5.1966. Nowhere in the said proceedings, the will alleged to have been executed by Muniammal on 21.1.1963 and referred to in the sale deed executed by Jayalakshmi in favour of the defendant- purchaser is referred to. All these above circumstances cast a doubt whether Muniammal would have executed such a Will as contended by the defendant- purchaser. 25. A perusal of the sale deed executed by Jayalakshmi Ammal in favour of the defendant- purchaser as found under Ex.P-4 would reveal the false recitals stating that Jayalakshmi Ammal derived title to the property from the alleged registered Will dated 21.1.1963, which is contrary to the terms of the settlement deed, wherein the said Jayalakshmi Ammal was given a life estate with full restraint over power of alienation. As stated above, from Ex.P-2 judgment of the District Court, it is seen that the settlement deed executed by Muniammal was upheld even in the year 1966 itself. Suppressing the said judgment, the said defendant Ratan Kawar stated as if she was the absolute owner of the property having full power of alienation. From the recital in the sale deed, it is clear that a copy of the judgment in O.S. No.312 of 1963 filed by Muniammal was handed over to the defendant- purchaser. Neither any records nor copy of the judgment pertaining to the proceedings in A.S. No.195 of 1965, where the judgment of the trial Court was reversed and the settlement of the said Muniammal was upheld were produced. 26. It would be futile on the part of the defendant, purchaser to contend that her vendor Jayalakshmi acquired title to the property by adverse possession, in view of the fact that Jayalakshmi was put in possession by Muniammal on the day of the execution of the settlement deed, wherein Jayalakshmi was given life interest. As stated above, the settlement has been upheld by the First Appellate Court, and since there was no second appeal, the decision of the First Appellate Court has become final also. Even during the life time of Jayalakshmi, she has not claimed any title to the property by adverse possession nor has she stated anything in the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant- purchaser. For the reasons stated above, the sale deed under Ex.P-4 cannot convey any right, title or interest to the contesting defendant- purchaser in the suit property. 27. The contention of the contesting defendant that she is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property without notice cannot be countenanced for more reasons than one. Even the sale deed under Ex.P-4 would clearly indicate that a copy of the Judgment in O.S. No.312 of 1963 was given to the defendant- purchaser. She has purchased the property only on 12.3.1990. The said Jayalakshmi Ammal has executed the sale Deed alleging that she derived title to the property from a registered will executed by Muniammal in her favour on 21.1.1963. Under the circumstances any ordinary prudent purchaser of an immovable property would probe further whether the proceedings have reached finality. She has purchased the property only on 12.3.1990. The said Jayalakshmi Ammal has executed the sale Deed alleging that she derived title to the property from a registered will executed by Muniammal in her favour on 21.1.1963. Under the circumstances any ordinary prudent purchaser of an immovable property would probe further whether the proceedings have reached finality. It has to be stated here that the subject matter for consideration in O.S. No.312 of 1963 was a settlement deed executed by Muniammal while the vendor has executed the sale deed in favour of the contesting defendant alleging that the said Muniammal has executed a registered Will in January, 1963. 28. The contention of the purchaser that she did not make any enquiry before purchase cannot be accepted, especially when she was put on notice regarding the proceedings in O.S. No.312 of 1963, by giving a copy of the judgment thereof. Thus it cannot be held that the defendant- purchaser was a bona fide purchaser without notice. But on the contrary, the facts and circumstances would be indicative of the fact that she had sufficient notice as to the better title of the plaintiff and that she did not care for the consequences that would follow. 29. The defendant purchaser has purchased the property from Jayalakshmi Ammal on 12.3.1990. Under Ex.P-5, the plaintiff has issued a notice on 19.10.1990, the receipt of which is not denied by the defendant- purchaser. But she has not chosen to send reply to the same. A perusal of Ex.P-5 notice issued by the plaintiff through her counsel would clearly show that the plaintiff has given all the details of the settlement, the suit in O.S. No.312 of 1963 filed by Muniammal, the appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S. No.195 of 1965, the judgment made therein reversing the decree of the trial Court, the existence of a building in the suit property, the description of the property, viz., vacant site and the sale deed executed on 12.3.1990 by Jayalakshmi in favour of the defendant- purchaser in order to evade the stamp duty; that the building was demolished by the defendant- purchaser that her vendor Jayalakshmi had no power of alienation and thus the sale was not valid; that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property and added further that the defendant purchaser should refrain from constructing any building whatsoever. Despite the notice, the defendant- purchaser has proceeded with the construction which constrained the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant- purchaser from further construction. 30. On an application by the plaintiff, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who visited the property on 29.10.1991. The report of the Commissioner dated 11.12.1991 and the plan are marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2 respectively. The Commissioner in his report has categorically stated that the construction work was already completed and that too recently. The defendant- purchaser has not filed any objection to the said Commissioner’s report. Hence the contention of the defendant- purchaser that the construction was completed long back, before filing of the suit has to be rejected as false. 31. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff brought to the notice of the Court that even after an order of injunction by the City Civil Court on 29.4.1991 in I.A. No.8038 of 1991 in O.S. No.2998 of 1991, the defendant- purchaser has proceeded with the construction of the building. The above facts and circumstances would clearly indicate that the construction made by the defendant- purchaser was thoroughly illegal. 32. Placing much reliance on Sec.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the learned counsel for the defendant- purchaser with vigour and vehemence would submit that even assuming that the settlement deed relied on by the plaintiff is true, valid and has come into force, the life interest conveyed on Jayalakshmi Ammal, the predecessor in title of the defendant- purchaser has enlarged into the absolute right by operation of law and hence at the time when she executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant- purchaser she was the fulfledged owner of the property and thus the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant- purchaser is perfectly valid in law and it would convey title to the property. 33. Countering to the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that under the facts and circumstances of the case, Sec.14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, alone would apply and not Sec.14(1), as stated by the defendant- purchaser’s side, since the said Jayalakshmi had no manner of pre-existing rights whatsoever in the suit property. 34. 33. Countering to the said contention, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that under the facts and circumstances of the case, Sec.14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, alone would apply and not Sec.14(1), as stated by the defendant- purchaser’s side, since the said Jayalakshmi had no manner of pre-existing rights whatsoever in the suit property. 34. Hence the question that would arise for consideration would be whether the life estate created in favour of Jayalakshmi under the settlement deed has been transformed into full ownership under Sec.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 35. After careful scrutiny of the evidence putforth, the Court is of the firm opinion that under the facts and circumstances of the case, Sec.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act has no application at all. 36. It is true that Muniammal, the original owner of the property has executed a settlement deed as found under Ex.P-1 wherein she has given life estate to her daughter Jayalakshmi. It cannot be disputed that Sec.14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act is an exception to Sub-sec.(1) thereof, and if in a given case, the situation is covered by Sub-sec.(2), the enlargement provided for in Sub-sec.(1) would not take place at all. The settlement deed is an instrument contemplated under Sub-sec.(2). Concededly, it has created a restricted estate in favour of Jayalakshmi. Under the circumstances Sub-sec.(1) to Sec.14 would not be attracted, and thus the Court has to necessarily agree with the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that Sub-sec.(1) to Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act has no application, but only Sub-sec.(2). 37. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant- purchaser would urge that the defendant- purchaser has spent huge money for raising constructions in the vacant site and that the plaintiff had full knowledge as to the construction and hence the relief of delivery of possession should not be granted. This contention cannot be countenanced even for a moment in view of the fact that the plaintiff on coming to know about the illegal construction had issued a notice to the defendant- purchaser. Despite the receipt of the same, she has not replied. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit seeking for permanent injunction wherein ad-interim injunction has also been granted. Even after all these things, the defendant- purchaser has continued and completed the construction. Despite the receipt of the same, she has not replied. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit seeking for permanent injunction wherein ad-interim injunction has also been granted. Even after all these things, the defendant- purchaser has continued and completed the construction. All these would go to show that the defendant- purchaser without any care and respect for law has proceeded to complete the construction. Hence, the Court is of the clear opinion that no indulgence has to be shown to the defendant- purchaser even by way of any compensation. 38. As discussed above, from the available materials and evidence, it has to be necessarily found that the settlement deed executed by Muniammal under Ex.P-1 wherein she has given life estate to Jayalakshmi and the vested reminder to the plaintiff, has become final and has come into operation that on the death of the first beneficiary, the present plaintiff has become the full-fledged owner of the suit property; and that suppressing the terms of the Settlement Deed as to the restraint over the power of alienation and Court proceedings, Jayalakshmi has executed the sale deed under Ex.P-4 which cannot in any way convey any title to the defendant- purchaser. Therefore without any hesitation it has to be held that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit property and consequently, the defendant- purchaser has to be directed to hand over vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff apart from handing over of the documents of title relating to the suit property and to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,000 per month as damages for unlawful use and occupation of the property from the date of the plaint till the date of delivery of possession. In so far as the other suit is concerned, since it is held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendant- purchaser has no right in the property, the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction as prayed for. 39. In the result, both the suits are decreed accordingly with costs. In so far as the other suit is concerned, since it is held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the defendant- purchaser has no right in the property, the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction as prayed for. 39. In the result, both the suits are decreed accordingly with costs. The defendant- purchaser is directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this judgment and to pay a sum of Rs.1000 per month towards damages to the plaintiff from the date of the plaint till the date of delivery of possession. The plaintiff is directed to pay the necessary court-fee towards the quantum of damages calculated, as per the decree granted above.