Madras High Court
S.Veerappan (Died) vs Saraswathi (Died) on 17 October, 2025
S.A.No.700 of 1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
S.A.No.700 of 1994
and
C.M.P.No.8297 of 1994
S.Veerappan (died)
2.Vijayalakshmi,
Grand D/o.S.Veerappan,
No.71C Type 2, Block 6,
Kurinjipadi Tk, Neyveli,
Cuddalore – 607 803. .. Appellants
(Sole appellant died and appellant
brought on record as LRs of sole
appellant vide order of this Court
dated 06.04.2023 made in
C.M.P.Nos.7979, 7980 & 7981 of
2023 in S.A.No.700 of 1994)
Vs.
1.Saraswathi (died)
2.Jayakodi
3.Rani
4.Kulasekaran
5.Mahalingam
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
S.A.No.700 of 1994
6.Rajaram
7.Maharajan
8.Selvaraj Pillai
9.Balasubramania Padayachi
10.Amirthavalli
11.Thangasami
12.Chinnayal
13.Savithri
14.Minnalkodi
15.Pavalakodi
16.Renuka
17.T.Ashokan
18.Sundarapandian
19.Velpandian
20.Mrs.Leela
21.Anushiya
22.Prabhakaran
23.Chittibabu
24.Shatish .. Respondents
(RR 17 to 24 impleaded as legal
2/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
S.A.No.700 of 1994
heirs of the deceased 1st respondent
vide order of this Court dated
11.02.2008 made in
C.M.P.Nos.1564 to 1566 of 2007 in
S.A.No.700 of 1994)
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of South Arcot
Vallalar District, Cuddalore, made in A.S.No.21 of 1993 on 28.02.1994
reversing the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge
of Cuddalore, dated 17.12.1992 made in O.S.No.158 of 1991.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Selvaraju
for M/s.Don Bosco Sam
For R11 : Died
For RR 17 to 24 : Mr.N.Damodaran
JUDGMENT
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 1st appellant is the 11th defendant in the suit. The appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
pertains to the 7th item of the suit schedule mentioned property. In all, 10
items were involved. The 11th defendant is interested only with respect to
the 7th item. Even at the time of filing the appeal on 25.05.1994, the
appeal was confined only to the 7th 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
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 “re;jjp!;” . As she was the only re;jjp of 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 8th defendant is the
husband of Jayakodi, the 6th 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
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 12th defendant. Appavu
Gounder sold another extent of 6 cents in favour of Selvaraj, the 13th
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 of Ramalinga
Padayachi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
8.She added that she presented a suit in O.S.No.388 of 1984
against the Appavu Gounder and Maharajan with respect to
R.S.Nos.416/1 & 416/3 and the same had been decreed and it became
final.
9.Insofar as the 11th defendant is concerned, she pleaded
Ramalinga Padayachi sold the 7th item to one Muthumanicka Chettiyar,
by way of a sale deed dated 27.02.1952. Muthumanicka Chettiyar in turn
sold the same to Veerappan, the 11th defendant on 16.07.1973. Insofar as
this document is concerned, she pleaded that it will not enure beyond the
lifetime of Ramalinga Padayachi. With respect to suit items 8 to 10, she
pleaded that Ramalinga Padayachi has leased the same to one Dhanabal,
the father of the 16th defendant. After the death of Dhanabal, the 16th
defendant attorned the tenancy in favour of Ramalinga Padayachi. After
the death of Ramalinga Padayachi, the 16th defendant promised to attorn
the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff, but did not do so. As the possession
of the defendants with respect to suit items 3 to 10 is illegal and
unlawful, she came forward with the suit as aforesaid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
10.Summons were served on the defendants. The defendants 6 to 9
and 12 to 15 remained exparte. Defendants 1 to 5 & 11 filed a written
statement. The plea of defendants 1 to 5 is as follows:
(i)They admitted that the settlement deed was executed by
Pichandi Padayachi in favour of Ramalinga Padayachi and
Dhanakodi Ammal and that the same was accepted and
acted upon.
(ii)They admitted to the fact that Dhanakodi Ammal passed
away and Ramalinga Padayachi continued to be in
possession of the properties. However, they denied that the
plaintiff is the exclusive “re;jjp”.
(iii)They alleged that the plaintiff never took care of
Ramalinga Padayachi and that after the death of Dhanakodi
Ammal, Ramalinga Padayachi married the 1st defendant and
through her, the defendants 2 to 5 were born.
(iv)According to them, after the death of Ramalinga
Padayachi, the defendants 1 to 5 were also entitled to the
properties.
(v)They pleaded that during his lifetime, Ramalinga
Padayachi was in possession of item nos.1 & 2 and after his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
death, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the
same.
(vi)They added that he had taken Dhanavalli as his third
wife, through whom the defendants 6 & 7 were born.
(vii)They pleaded that the children of the second wife would
also have to be treated as “re;jjp!;” and that these word will
also cover the children through the third wife.
(viii)They asserted that the plaintiff can only file a suit for
partition as co-sharer and the suit for declaration and other
reliefs is not sustainable.
(ix)They also pleaded that the word “re;jjp” only mean male
issues and not the daughters.
(x)They referred to the settlement deed and pointed out that
certain religious activities have to be performed and that
such activities cannot be performed by females as they were
not covered under the definition.
(xi)According to them, Pichandi Padayachi would have
never thought about female issues of Ramalinga Padayachi
and Dhanakodi Ammal and acquiring any interest in the
properties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
(xii)They agreed that Pichandi Padayachi wanted the heirs
of Ramalinga Padayachi to succeed to the estate. Therefore,
they took a stand that the plaintiff would be entitled to 1/8 th
share along with defendants 1 to 7.
11.The 1st appellant / 11th defendant contended that the settlement
deed was executed. He took a plea that Pichandi Padayachi was heavily
indebted and therefore, in order to secrete the properties away from
creditors, the document came to be executed. He alleged that the original
settlement deed was never handed over to the setlees and the settlement
deed was never acted upon. He pleaded that possession continued with
the settler and therefore, the settlement deed was void. It was further
alleged that the deed was never came into force. Having taken these
pleas, he also pleaded that Ramalinga Padayachi enjoyed the suit
properties by mortgaging the same in his own right. He pleaded estoppel,
as the plaintiff was well aware, of the execution of the mortgage deed by
Ramalinga Padayachi in favour of Muthumanicka Chettiar and the
subsequent sale made by him to the said Chettiar on 27.02.1952.
12.The 11th defendant added that he purchased the suit property
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
from the said Muthumanicka Chettiar by way of a registered sale deed
for a sum of Rs.7,500/- on 16.07.1973 and had been in possession and
enjoyment of the same. He further stated that he had made a lot of
improvements over the property converting the land into fertile one.
13.The plaintiff filed a reply statement stating that the term
“re;jjp” is a comprehensive term, which includes both the male and
female heirs. She asserted that merely because some charities had to be
performed, it cannot be construed that the word “re;jjp” mean only the
males. She stated by the settlement deed, Ramalinga Padayachi and
Dhanakodi Ammal had to enjoy the property without alienation and as
she is the sole “re;jjp”, she is entitled to the properties.
14.On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the
following issues and additional issues:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
15.On the side of the plaintiff, she examined herself as PW1 and
two other witnesses on her side. The plaintiff marked Exs.A1 to A13. On
the side of the defendants, 3rd defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
11th defendant as D.W.3. Apart from this, two other witnesses were
examined on the side of the defendants. The defendants marked Exs.B1
to B26.
16.After consideration of both oral and documentary evidences,
the learned Trial Judge came to a conclusion that the suit has to be
dismissed with costs and accordingly dismissed it so.
17.Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.21 of
1993. The learned Appellate Judge reversed the findings of the Trial
Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. The Appellate Court declared
the plaintiff's title with respect to the suit items and granted the relief of
injunction insofar as item Nos.1 & 2 are concerned and for recovery of
possession insofar as item Nos.3 to 10. She relegated the parties to a
separate proceedings, under Order XX Rule 12 of Code of Civil
Procedure, insofar as mesne profits are concerned.
18.Aggrieved by the reversal of the decree, the 11th defendant has
preferred this second appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
19.This Court entertained the appeal on 07.06.1994 and framed the
following substantial questions of law:
“1.Whether the right of setting aside the sale deed is barred
by limitation under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
2.Whether the prior life estate in the property is barred to
sue for setting aside the sale deed?
3.Whether the minor acquired vested interest in the
property at the birth of the first respondent according to
Section 19 of the Transfer of Property Act and has all right
to set aside the sale during the life estate being alive and
executory?
4.Whether the settlement is valid or struck down by
Sections 13 and 14 of the Transfer of Property Act as it did
not confer vested interest on any of the family members of
Ramalinga Padayachi?
5.Whether the title of this appellant over the suit property
item No.7 of the plaint is perfected by adverse possession
irrespective of its devloution?”
20.Pending the appeal, the contesting 1st respondent passed away
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
and his legal heirs were impleaded as respondents 17 to 24. The
appellant too passed away. The appeal had been dismissed as abated on
08.10.2009 as no steps were taken for the appellant. Subsequently,
applications were filed to restore the appeal and to bring on record the
legal representatives of the sole appellant. These applications were
allowed by this Court on 06.04.2022. The grand daughter of the sole
appellant was brought on record as the 2nd appellant. With all these house
keeping work having been completed, this Court took up the appeal for
final disposal today.
As the questions of law are inextricably connected, they are
answered together.
21.It is the plea of the 11th defendant that the alienation of the
property by Ramalinga Padayachi to Muthumanicka Chettiyar was well
within the knowledge of the plaintiff. He pleaded that the First Appellate
Court did not take into consideration the plaintiff had not taken any legal
proceedings to set aside the sale deed dated 27.02.1952, executed by
Ramalinga Padayachi in favour of Muthumanicka Chettiyar or the sale
deed executed by Muthumanicka Chettiyar in favour of the appellant on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
16.07.1973. He pleaded that under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, a suit
to set aside the sale deed has to be filed within a period of three years
from its alienation and that having not been filed the suit as hopelessly
barred by limitation. He urged that, if at all, the plaintiff would get a
vested right it is on the date of her birth, in terms of Section 19 of the
Transfer of Property Act and therefore, she ought to have filed the suit
during the donee's lifetime. He added that in any event, as the 11 th
defendant had prescribed title by adverse possession. He urged the suit
insofar as the 11th defendant is concerned, ought to have been dismissed.
22.The learned counsel for the contesting respondent / plaintiff
pleaded that as per the terms of settlement deed, the entire property,
which was the subject matter of settlement, devolved upon the plaintiff
on the death of her father and she had become the absolute owner of the
property. Referring to the settlement deed, he pointed out that the
settlement deed specifically directed that the donees Dhanakodi Ammal
and Ramalinga Padayachi should not alienate the properties, but could
enjoy the same during their lifetime. Therefore, the alienations, at best,
would be valid during their lifetime and on their death, it automatically
vests with the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
23.He pleaded that the appellant has misconstrued the provisions
of Article 60 of the Limitation Act, which is not at all applicable to the
facts of the case. He added that as the alienation made by the plaintiff's
father cannot go beyond his lifetime, there is no necessity on her part to
seek setting aside the same. He pleaded that the Lower Appellate Court
had properly appreciated the facts and had decreed the suit. Hence, he
sought for dismissal of the suit with cost.
24.I have carefully considered the submissions on both sides and I
have gone through the records.
25.It is not in dispute that the property originally belonged to
Pichandi Padayachi. He had settled the properties in favour of Dhanakodi
Ammal and Ramalinga Padayachi on 06.10.1933 by way of Ex.A1.
Ramalinga Padayachi died on 15.12.1990 as is clear from Ex.A2. It is
here that the terms of Ex.A1 become relevant. For ready reference, the
relevant portions of the documents are extracted as hereunder:
“vdf;F re;jjpfs; ,y;yhky; jw;fhyk;
jhd; tpUj;jhg;gpakha; ,Ue;jhYk; c';fis vd;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
FLk;gj;jpy; te;jpUe;J FLk;gj;ija[k;
brhj;Jf;fisa[k; ghu;j;J te;J vd;ida[k; vd;
kidtp brhu;zk;khisa[k; rtul;ruiz bra;J
tUk;gof;Fk; ehd; elj;jp te;j ju;kj;ij elj;jp
tUk;gof;Fk; brhy;yp me;jg;go eP';fs;
rk;kjg;gl;L vd; FLk;gj;jpy; te;jpUg;gjhYk;
c';fisg; bghUj;j Mjut[ bra;J itf;Fk;go
eP';fs; vd;idf; nfl;L ehDk; rk;kjg;gl;L
vdf;F ghj;jpakhd ,jdoapy; fhzg;gl;l (,U
E}W U:gha;) U:/200-? bgUkhd brhj;ij
,e;j brl;oy;bkz;L K:ykha; tpl;oUg;gjhy;
eP';fspUtUk; i& brhj;ij ve;jtpj guhjPdk;
bra;ahky; mDgtpj;J te;J vd;ida[k; vd;
kidtp brhu;zk;khisa[k; rtul;rid bra;J
tu ntz;oabjd;Wk;. ehd; bra;J te;j ju;kk;
vy;yg;gk;ngl;il kJuh tpHg;gs;sk; Rg;gpukzpa
Rthkp nfhapYf;F mfz;lj;jpw;fhf i&
nfhtpypd; ju;kfu;j;jhtplk; tUk; 1?f;F 12-?
gdpbuz;L tPjk; bfhLj;J tuntz;oabjd;Wk;
ehd;; i& bghl;lbtsp fpuhkj;jpy; bra;J te;j
jz;zPu; ge;jy; ju;kj;ija[k; elj;jp tu
ntz;oabjd;Wk; mg;go ju;kj;ij elj;jp tuj;
jtwpdhy; i& nfhapy;ju;kfu;j;jnu tNypj;Jf;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
bfhs;sntz;oabjd;Wk;. c';fSf;F re;jjp
,Ue;jhy; c';fs; $Ptjpirf;Fg; gpwF i&
re;jjpfs; nky; fz;l c&uj;Jg;go ele;J
tuntz;oabjd;Wk; mg;go re;jjp ,y;yhtpl;lhy;
c';fs; $Ptjpirf;Fg; gpwF i& uhkyp';f g{rp
thu;Rfns brhj;ij mile;J i& jPu;k';fis
elj;jp tuntz;oabjd;Wk; ehd; rk;kjpj;J
vGjpf; bfhLj;j brl;oy;bkz;l; gj;jpuk;/”
(underlining by me)
26.Pichandi Padayachi had settled the properties, since he and his
wife did not have any issues. The settlement deed called upon Ramalinga
Padayachi and Dhanakodi Ammal, to take care of the donor and his wife
during their life time. The crucial clause for the purpose of this being that
the donees were not entitled to alienate their property. It is clear from the
following terms:
“eP';fspUtUk;i& brhj;ij ve;jtpj guhjPdk;
bra;ahky; mDgtpj;J te;J”
27.This makes it clear that Dhanakodi Ammal and Ramalinga
Padayachi were given the right to enjoy their property during their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
lifetime and after their death, it was to devolve on the “re;jjp!;” of the
couple. It also directed the settlees and the heirs born to them to perform
the charities that were being performed by the donors. A casual glance of
the document in Ex.A1 makes it clear that Ramalinga Padayachi and
Dhanakodi Ammal had a right only to enjoy their property during their
lifetime, with no right of alienation. The document also makes it clear
that the properties were to be enjoyed by the heirs of the setlees. That
being the position, the alienation made by Ramalinga Padayachi cannot
be treated as alienations conferring absolute title on the purchasers. The
latter got title pur autre vie or “for another's life”.
28.A life estate holder at law is entitled to alienate his life estate.
On the death of the life estate holder, the right so transferred comes to an
end. This is because of Section 6 of Transfer of Property Act. In terms of
that provision, property of any kind can be transferred / alienated. An
interest in a life estate does not fall within the list of non-transferable
properties. It is also not intended to the life estate holder personally nor
is it spes successionis. Hence, the right transferred under such alienations
comes to an end with the death of the life estate holder.
29.Contrary to the restriction under the gift under Ex.A1,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
Ramalinga Padayachi had mortgaged the property originally to
Muthumanicka Chettiar and thereafter, sold the same to him.
Muthumanicka Chettiar in turn alienated the property in favour of the
appellant. As long as Ramalinga Padayachi was alive, the alienees could
have enjoyed the property. As pointed out, Ramalinga Padayachi died on
15.12.1990 and therefore, whatever right was transferred by him in
favour of the third parties die with his death.
30.It is here I will address the plea on adverse possession that was
raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The property held by the
11th defendant would have become adverse to the plaintiff had she kept
quiet for a period of 12 years or more after the death of Ramalinga
Padayachi. However, she presented the suit for declaration of her title
and for recovery of possession on 10.06.1991, i.e., to say within six
months of the death of Ramalinga Padayachi. Hence, the plea of adverse
possession stands rejected.
31.Insofar as the plea that the defendants 1 to 10 also have a share
in the property is concerned, a reading of Ex.A1 makes it clear that the
settlor desired with the legal heirs of Dhanakodi Ammal and Ramalinga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
Padayachi should enjoy the properties and in case they do not have any
legal heirs, only then, the properties were to be enjoyed by the heirs of
Ramalinga Padayachi. A reading of the evidence of D.W.1 makes it clear
that the plaintiff was the only child of Ramalinga Padayachi and
Dhanakodi Ammal. The defendants 2 to 10 having been born to
Ramalinga Padayachi and Chinnayal and to their predeceased daughter,
they cannot be treated as legal heirs of Ramalinga Padayachi and
Dhanakodi Ammal.
32.It will be useful to recollect the verdict of the Privy Council in
Safdar Ali v. Mirza Maksudali Beg AIR 1930 PC 41, where the Board
held that the term “heirs” would include both male and female heirs,
unless otherwise restricted. This view seems to have been approved by
the Supreme Court in N.Krishnammal v. R. Ekambaram and Ors. AIR
1979 SC 1298. The Supreme Court held that legal terms such as “heirs”
used in a “WILL”, must be construed in a legal sense, unless a contrary
intention is clearly expressed by the testator. The word “heir” cannot
normally be limited to male issues only. It must mean all persons who are
entitled to the property of another under the law of inheritance.
33.Let us now discuss the term “re;jjp”. “Santhathi”, a Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
word, is derived from Sanskrit. It has several regional variations. The
primary meaning granted to the term is ‘offspring’, ‘progeny’, or
‘lineage’. Relying upon Munier Williams Sanskrit dictionary, a Division
Bench of this Court (Sankaran Nair and Spencer, JJ.) held that Santhathi
means uninterrupted succession, descent, lineage, race progeny,
offspring, a eon, as daughter, etc. (See, Balasubramania Pillai and Ors
v. Petcha Pillai AIR 1917 Mad 837).
34.Interpreting the Sanskrit root “Sanathana”, the Privy Council in
Buddha Singh v. Laltu Singh (1915) ILR 37 All 604 held that the word
“Sanathana” means race, lineage, or posterity. A Division Bench
consisting of Ramachandra Iyer, C.J., and Sadasivam, J. in C.S.
Nagaraja Iyer and Anr. V. Seethalakshmi Ammal., (1962) 75 LW 67
held that the word “Santhathi” must be understood as descendants i.e.,
not merely the children, but children’s children, children’s children’s
children, etc.
35.In Guruvajammah v Rangaswamy Mudaliar 27 M.L.J. 694 at
page 718, another Division Bench consisting of Sir John Edward Wallis,
C.J., and Ramesam, J. held the term “Santhathi” itself involves an idea of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
series of descendants one after another, and not all the descendants taken
collectively. Hence, the word “Santhathi” is much wider in connotation
than the other terms which are found in legal documents, viz., “Putra-
Putra” (See, Rajah Ravu Sri Krishnayya Rao v. Raja Saheb Meharban
Dostan Sri Raja Ravu Venkata Kumara Mahipathi Surya Rao
Bahadur Garu, (1928) 28 LW (Mad) (FB)).
36.The plea that “re;jjp” refers only to male heir and not to a
female heir cannot be countenanced. This position has been settled by a
judgment of this Court holding that “re;jjp” includes both male and
female. [See, S.S.Rajalinga Raja and others Vs.
S.Thiruvengadathammal and others, (1987) 100 LW 393].
37.As the document contemplates only the “re;jjp” of Ramalinga
Padayachi and Dhanakodi Ammal were to enjoy the vested remainder,
the plea that the legal heirs of Ramalinga Padayachi are entitled to
succeed to the estate is a misreading of Ex.A1. This wrong interpretation
of the term had rightly been interfered with by the Lower Appellate
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
38.With respect to the plea that only male persons are entitled to
perform charities, here too I am not in agreement with the submissions of
the learned counsel for the appellant. By virtue of Ex.A1, certain
charities were called upon to perform by Ramalinga Padayachi and
Dhanakodi Ammal and after their lifetime, by their legal heirs. By
performance of charity, it does not mean that the beneficiary of the
settlement should personally go into the Temple and perform the same.
In fact, this becomes further clear because the settlor directed that in case
such charities are not performed, it is open to the persons in charge of the
Temple to spend for the charities and recover the amount so spent from
the settlees or their descendants.
39.As I have concluded that Ramalinga Padayachi had no right to
alienate the property absolutely and since he had a life estate, the
alienations could be valid only during his lifetime. The pleas raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant do not deserve any acceptance.
None of the questions of law raised by the appellant arise for
consideration in the appeal.
40.In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. In fine, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
judgment and decree of the learned 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 learned Additional Subordinate Judge,
Cuddalore, in O.S.No.158 of 1991, dated 17.12.1992 stands confirmed.
Considering the fact that the appellant had purchased the property and
therefore, cannot be treated as a trespasser, I am not inclined to impose
any costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.10.2025
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The District Judge,
South Arcot Vallalar District,
Cuddalore.
2.The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Additional Sub Court,
Cuddalore.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
krk
17.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:34 pm )
