IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 AS.No. 5 of 1996 OS.326/1987 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE APPELLANT: PLAINTIFF: O.S.DHANDAYUDHAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.O.N.SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR, KASABA AMSOM AND KARIAKUNNU DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY SENIOR ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SRI.LIGEY EMMANUAL RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS: 1. O.S.NARASIMHAN, S/O.O.N.SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. KRISHNAVENI AMMAL, W/O.O.V.SUNDARAN CHETTIAR RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.192, IST AGRAHARAM, SELAM-1, TAMIL NADU. (DIED- LRS. RECORDED) 3. O.S.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.O.V.SUNDARAN CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.192, IST AGRAHARAM, SELAM -1, TAMIL NADU. 4. O.S.DEVENDRAN, S/O. -DO-, RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.192, IST AGRAHARAM, SELAM-1, TAMIL NADU. 5. O.S.BALASUBRAMANIAN, S/O. -DO-, RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.192, IST AGRAHARAM, SELAM-1, TAMIL NADU. 6. O.V.GOVINDARAJALU CHETTIAR, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. (DIED-LRS. IMPLEADED). ADDL.R7. VASAVAAMBAL , AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, (WIFE) VASAVI ILLOM, PONNAMALI PARAMBU, NEAR BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, KOTTOLI, CALICUT - 16. 8. VISALAKSHI, D/O.LATE O.V.GOVINDARAJALU CHETTIAR, 49 YEARS, W/O.MADHAVAN, MURTHY BOOK SHOP, 188 BAZAR STREET, POOLACHI - 642 001, TAMIL NADU. 9. CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.LATE O.V.GOVINDARAJALU CHETTIAR, AGED 49 YEARS, DHANALAKSHMI BANK MANAGER, VARKALA, NEAR TRIVANDRUM. 10. USHADEVI, D/O. -DO-, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.DR.JAYAPRAKASH, M.B.B.S., H.NO.1191, 27TH MAIN ROAD, IST PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE. THE ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 7 TO 10 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 6TH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 17.5.2004 ON C.M.P.NO.4741/1999. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE RECORDED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 17.5.2004 IN MEMO CF.10952/1999. R6 BY SENIOR ADV. SRI.M.C.SEN SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN FOR R7 TO 10 SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R7 TO 10. SRI.M.P.HARIKUMAR FOR R7 TO 10. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR ADDL.R7 TO 10 SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR ADDL.R7 TO 10 SRI.C.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (CALICUT) FOR R3 & R5 THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ A.S. NO. 5 OF 1996 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March,2011 JUDGMENT The appellant filed O.S.No.326 of 1987, on the file of Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, against the respondents for partition of the plaint schedule property having an extent of 2.61 acres of land and the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in Kottooli Desom of Kozhikode Taluk. The plaintiff claimed one- fourth share in the plaint schedule property. 2. For comprehending the facts of the case, it is necessary to mention the genealogy of the parties. A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 2:: NARASIMHAN Gurumoorthy O.N.Venkitarama Subramanian Subhalakshmi Sathyabhama Chettiar (died) (died in 1974) (died) (died) (His wife Balakrishna Ammal died in 1924) Dandayudhan Narasimhan (Plaintiff) (D1) Sundaram Govindarajulu Padmavathy Arjunabai (died-1946) (D6) (died pending Appeal) LRs: LRs: Krishnaveni Amma, Vasava Ammal (Widow) (R7) (Widow)- D2 Visalakshi (R8) Balakrishnan- D3 Chandrasekharan (R9) Devendran - D4 Ushadevi (R10) Balasubramanian-D5 3. It is admitted by the parties that the property originally belonged to Thekkedath Devaki Amma in jenm. She was also in possession of the property. According to the plaintiff, O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar, the husband of Balakrishna Ammal, purchased the property from Devaki Amma in the name of Balakrishna Ammal, benami for O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar, as per Ext.A100 registered sale deed dated 12.10.1920. According to A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 3:: defendant No.6, the property was purchased by Balakrishna Ammal with the funds of K.Venketarama Chettiar, the father of Balakrishna Ammal and the transaction was not a benami transaction, as alleged by the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the suit. 4. According to the plaintiff, O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar died in 1961 and according to the 6th defendant, he died in 1971. O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar had two brothers and two sisters. They were: Gurumoorthi, Subramanian, Subhalakshmi and Sathyabhama. Gurumoorthi passed away. Subramanian died in 1974. Subramanian is survived by his children Dhandayudhan (plaintiff) and Narasimhan (the first defendant). O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar was survived by his four children, namely, Sundaram (predecessor-in-interest of defendants 2 to 5), Govindarajalu (defendant No.6), Padmavathi Ammal and Arjunabai Ammal. Govindarajalu died pending appeal and his children were impleaded as additional respondents. 5. The case of the plaintiff is the following: From Thekkedath Devaki Amma, O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar purchased the property in the name of his wife Balakrishna Ammal, benami for him, as per A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 4:: Ext.A100 registered sale deed. O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar was doing business in groceries and provisions in Calicut. Because of his involvement in business and attendant risks, he thought it prudent to purchase the property in the name of his wife. Balakrishna Ammal had no means of her own and she was completely depending on her husband. O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar was a person having sufficient funds. After the purchase, O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and he was paying the land revenue and other taxes. He used to take income and collect rent from the tenants. O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar also effected improvements in the plaint schedule property by planting kuzhikoors and constructing buildings. Govindarajalu (defendant No.6) was not in good terms with O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar. The sixth defendant made the life of O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar miserable. O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar had to depend on Krishnaveni Ammal, the widow of Sundaram. O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar had great regard for defendants 2 to 5, who were financially poor. On 17.2.1958, O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar settled one-half rights in the property in favour of his brother Subramanian and the remaining one-half right in favour of defendants 2 to 5, as per Ext.A1 settlement deed. The A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 5:: donees were given possession of the plaint schedule property. Subramanian died in 1974 and his one-half right in the plaint schedule property devolved on the plaintiff and the first defendant in equal shares. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff used to pay the land revenue and used to take income from the property and collect rent from the tenants till 1980. Thereafter, defendants 2 to 5 are taking income from the property and collecting rent from the tenants. There are eleven houses in the plaint schedule property, of which, ten are occupied by tenants. The remaining one house was occupied by the second defendant for some time. When she left Calicut, she entrusted the house to the sixth defendant. The plaintiff alleged that defendant Nos.2 and 6 colluded together to defeat the rights of the plaintiff and other co- owners. The plaintiff claimed one-fourth share. He contended that the first defendant is entitled to the one-fourth share and defendants 2 to 5 are entitled to the remaining 2/4 share in the property. 6. The first defendant filed a written statement and contended that he is entitled to 1/4 share. He supported the plaintiff. Defendants 2 to 5 did not file any written statement. A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 6:: 7. In the written statement filed by the sixth defendant, he contended that the plaint schedule property belonged to Balakrishna Ammal. The case of purchase of the property by O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar, benami for Balakrishna Ammal, was denied in the written statement. In the written statement, it was contended that the property was purchased with the funds of K.Venkitarama Chettiar, the father of Balakrishna Ammal. Balakrishna Ammal died in 1924. The property was dealt with by her husband thereafter as her children were minors. As per the customary law of the parties, the property of Balakrishna Ammal devolved on her two daughters, namely, Padmavathi Ammal and Arjunabai Ammal only. O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar had no rights in the property at any time. He did not exercise any independent act of possession. The alleged settlement deed in favour of defendants 2 to 5 and O.N.Subramanian do not confer any rights on them. Taking of income by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 was denied by the sixth defendant. All the eleven houses in the property have been let out to tenants. The second defendant had not occupied any of the houses. She did not entrust the house to the sixth defendant. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are not entitled to any share in the property. It was A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 7:: also contended that as per the power of attorney granted by Padmavathi Ammal and Arjunabai Ammal (Ext.B1), the sixth defendant was in possession of the property from 1958 onwards. He took income from the property and inducted tenants. He effected improvements in the property. In the year 1963, Padmavathi Ammal and Arjunabai Ammal leased the property to the sixth defendant. Even if the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 had any rights, the same has been lost by adverse possession. The sixth defendant also contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of “the Central Act abolishing the claim of real owners against Benamidars”. 8. Before the trial court, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A100 were marked on his side. The sixth defendant was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B51 were marked on his side. 9. As stated earlier, the trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal was heard in great detail. Both sides produced a number of additional documents as per I.A.Nos.3097 of 2005, 3805 of 2005, 3921 of 2006 and 4511 of 2006. The plaintiff/appellant opposed the reception of additional documents produced by the sixth defendant. Similarly, the sixth defendant opposed acceptance of the additional A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 8:: documents produced by the plaintiff/appellant. Sri.M.C.Sen, learned senior counsel appearing for the sixth defendant also raised a contention that some of the additional documents produced by the plaintiff are concocted documents and there are manipulations and erasures in some of the documents. 10. Both sides submitted that the property is situated within Kozhikode City limits and the property is worth several crores. During the course of arguments, it was also admitted by the counsel appearing for the parties that there are several errors and erroneous statement of facts in the judgment of the court below. It is also submitted by the counsel on either side that the findings of the trial court on issue No.1 that the suit is hit by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is not correct in view of the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in R.Rajagopal Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and others v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (Dead) by Lrs. ((1995) 2 SCC 630) and Samithri Devi v. Sampuram Singh (2011 (1) KLT SN 57 case No.75(SC)). 11. The trial court also held in paragraph 11 of the judgment that the plaint schedule property was not acquired by A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 9:: O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar in the name of his wife as benami for him. The only discussion on that point is contained in paragraph 11 of the judgment. The contentions of the parties, the pleadings on the point and evidence on record were not dealt with at all by the court below while dealing with this point. 12. Issue Nos.2 to 6 were considered together by the trial court. It was held by the trial court that the property was acquired by Balakrishna Ammal with the funds of her father. This finding was arrived at only on the ground that no evidence was available to prove otherwise. Then the trial court held that as per the custom of inheritance prevailing in the community at the time of death of Balakrishna Ammal, her daughters would get rights over the property. There is no discussion about the custom and there is no discussion on the question of acquisition of the property. It is true that the counsel on either party submitted before this Court that if the property was Stridhana property of Balakrishna Ammal, it would devolve on her two daughters, Padmavathi Ammal and Arjunabai Ammal. But the trial court arrived at the finding on no materials. 13. Paragraph 15 of the judgment starts with the sentence as A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 10:: follows: “Of course the plaintiff has also produced Exts.A1 to A100 to prove his case.” The conclusion of that paragraph running to 15 lines is the following. “So all the above referred documents will only show that the 6th defendant dealt the property firstly on the basis of the power of attorney deed executed by his sisters and then by the lease deed executed by them.” The documents referred to are Exts.A1 to A100. It is not stated how those documents would prove the case of the defendants. There is no discussion about the nature and probative value of those documents and the impact of those documents on the respective contentions of the parties. 14. A building in the plaint schedule property was in possession of a tenant, namely, Krishnan Nambissan. O.N.Subramanian Chettiyar, father of the plaintiff filed a Rent Control Petition against the tenant for eviction in the year 1958. Ext.B51 judgment in C.M.A.No.108 of 1959, Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode, arising out of that petition shows that the appeal was dismissed finding that there was bona fide dispute regarding title of O.N.Subramanian Chettiyar. The court below held that Ext.B51 judgment would operate as res judicata against the plaintiff in the present suit. This finding is clearly wrong. In the Rent Control A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 11:: Petition, the tenant had disputed the title of O.N.Subramanian Chettiyar on the basis of the gift deed executed by O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar in his favour. According to the tenant, the property belonged to Balakrishna Ammal of her own and after her death, it devolved on her daughters. The Rent Control Court found that denial of title was bona fide and relegated the parties to a civil suit. O.N.Subramanian Chettiyar filed C.M.A.No.108 of 1959 challenging that order. That appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the Rent Control Court. In Ext.B51 judgment, it was held that O.N.Subramanian Chettiyar had to prove, in a properly constituted suit, that O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar was the owner of the property. Ext.B51 judgment cannot operate as res judicata at all against the plaintiff in the present suit. 15. In paragraph 18 of the judgment, the court below held that even though Exts.A1 to A100 have been produced by the plaintiff, the said documents will not prove that he got title or right over the property. There is no proper discussion at all in respect of the various documents produced by the plaintiff. In paragraph 19 of the judgment, the court below held that as regards Ext.A1 settlement deed executed by O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar in favour of his A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 12:: brother Subramanian and defendants 2 to 5, there is a specific denial of execution of the document, by the sixth defendant. This finding is clearly wrong. There is no case for the sixth defendant that Ext.A1 was not executed by O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar. 16. After holding that the sixth defendant was in possession of the property from 1963 onwards on the basis of the lease deed executed by Padmavathi Ammal and Arjunabai Ammal, the court below held that the materials on record would establish that the plaintiff was ousted from the plaint schedule property and the sixth defendant has perfected title by ouster, adverse possession and limitation. In paragraph 19 of the judgment, the court below arrived at the aforesaid two contradictory and irreconcilable findings. After holding that the sixth defendant was claiming under a title and having accepted his possession on the basis of those documents, the court below was not justified in arriving at the conclusion that the sixth defendant had perfected title by ouster, adverse possession and limitation. The acceptance of the plea of ouster and adverse possession presupposes the rights of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. Only if they and the sixth defendant are co-owners, the sixth defendant could contend that he had perfected title by ouster and A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 13:: adverse possession. The sixth defendant had no such case. He always reiterated his title to the property. Therefore, the finding of the court below in paragraph 19 of the judgment is incorrect. 17. The other submissions made by Sri.T.Sethumadhavan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and that of Sri.M.C.Sen, the learned senior counsel appearing for the sixth defendant (sixth respondent in the appeal) are summarized below: Submissions made by the appellant: In paragraph 3 of the plaint, the case of benami was specifically set up. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.Rajagopal Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and others v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (dead) by LRs. ((1995) 2 SCC 630) and Samithri Devi v. Sampuram Singh (2011 (1) KLT SN 57 case No.75), the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act does not apply to the present case. The said Act has no retrospective operation. The suit was filed in December, 1987, much before the commencement of the Act. On 26.11.1957, O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar settled the property in favour of defendants 3 to 6 with life estate to the second defendant, Krishnaveni Ammal. Subsequently, O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar cancelled the settlement deed and executed Ext.A1 settlement deed A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 14:: dated 21.2.1958 in favour of his brother Subramanian and defendants 3 to 5, the legal representatives of Sundaram, son of O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar. There is no case that Balakrishna Ammal was having funds of her own. There is no acceptable evidence to show that K.Venkitarama Chettiar, the father of Balakrishna Ammal, provided funds for the purchase of the property. The court below has not properly considered the case of benami set up by the plaintiff. The documentary and oral evidence were not properly considered. The only finding on the question of benami is contained in paragraph 11 of the judgment. Even a proper issue was not raised by the trial court on the question of benami. Issue No.2 raised in the suit was “Is the suit property is self acquisition of Balakrishna Ammal as contended by D6”. The trial court has to raise a proper issue and to decide the same. The alleged resources of K.Venkitarama Chettiar, the father of Balakrishna Ammal, are not in evidence. DW1 did not say anything about it. The original of Ext.A100 was produced by the plaintiff/appellant as additional evidence as per I.A.No.3921 of 2006 and it is stated that the document was in the custody of the second defendant who handed over the same to the plaintiff. Custody of Ext.A100 is a relevant factor in deciding the question of benami. In the settlement deed A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 15:: dated 26.11.1957 executed by O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar, there is a recital that Ext.A100 was handed over to the second defendant. In Ext.A1 settlement deed executed by O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar in the year 1958, it is stated that the acquisition was benami for him in the name of his wife. The consideration shown in Ext.A100 is `2,500/- and the value shown in Ext.A1 is `10,000/-. Evidence of DW1 shows that up to 1958, O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar was in possession and the sisters of the sixth defendant or the sixth defendant were not in possession. It is submitted that the enjoyment of the property by O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar is proved by Exts.A2 to A21 and A23 to A69. The evidence in the case would indicate that O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar was a flourishing businessman and that he constructed the buildings in the property. There is no specific denial of the averments in paragraph 3 of the plaint. It is admitted by DW1 that O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar was a businessman. His financial capability is also evident from the evidence of DW1. The declaration made by O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar in Ext.A1 gift deed and in the gift deed executed in the year 1957 that the acquisition was benami for him, has great evidentiary value. The admissions made by DW1 that his mother Balakrishna Ammal never possessed the property, that she never entrusted the buildings to tenants and A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 16:: that she never took income from the property are very relevant in considering the contentions of benami. It is pointed out that DW1 clearly admitted in evidence that O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar possessed the property as the property belonged to him. The evidence would indicate that O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar never intended to confer any right or benefit on his wife Balakrishna Ammal in respect of the property. Sri.T.Sethumadhavan also relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: AIR 1925 PC 181, AIR 1949 FC 88, Union of India v. Moksh Builders and Financiers Ltd. & others (AIR 1977 SC 409), Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (AIR 1957 SC 49), Jaydayal Poddar through LRs. and another v. Mst.Bibi Hazra and others (AIR 1974 SC 171), Krishnanand Agnihotri v. State of M.P. (AIR 1977 SC 796), Kanakarathanammal v. V.S.Loganatha Mudaliar and another (AIR 1965 SC 271), Bhim Singh (dead) by LRs. and another v. Kan Singh (AIR 1980 SC 727), The Controller of Estate Duty, Lucknow v. Aloke Mitra (AIR 1981 SC 102), Sahdeo Karan Singh and others v. Usman Ali Khan and others (AIR 1939 PATNA 462), Rebti Devi (Smt) v. Ram Dutt and another ((1997) 11 SCC 714), Valliammal (Died) A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 17:: LRs. v. Subramaniam and others (2004) 7 SCC 233), G.Mahalingappa v. G.M.Savitha (2005) 6 SCC 441, Binapami Paul v. Pratima Ghosh and others ((2007) 6 SCC 100) and AIR 1986 Calcutta 83. 18. It is submitted that the case of the sixth defendant that on the death of Balakrishna Ammal, the property devolved on her daughters is not correct. It is not proved that the property was the Stridhana property of Balakrishna Ammal. There is no acceptable evidence to show that the property was purchased with the funds of K.Venkitarama Chettiar, the father of Balakrishna Ammal. There is no case for any of the parties that Balakrishna Ammal had her own funds and that she acquired the property out of her skill or earning. The court below seems to have assumed that the property was the Stridhana property of Balakrishna Ammal. There is no pleading or proof in respect of the same. 19. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the sixth defendant that Padmavathi Ammal and Arjunabai Ammal, the sisters of the sixth defendant, executed a power of attorney in favour of the sixth defendant is not correct. It is A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 18:: not proved that such a power of attorney was executed by Padmavathi Ammal and Arjunabai Ammal in favour of the sixth defendant. Arjunabai Ammal filed O.S.No.45 of 1976 against the sixth defendant to set aside Ext.B1 power of attorney and Ext.B3 kanam deed allegedly executed by Padmavathi Ammal and Arjunabai Ammal in favour of the sixth defendant. It is stated in the plaint in O.S.No.45 of 1976 that the property was acquired by O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar as benami in the name of his wife. It is also submitted that the additional documents produced by the appellant would show that the Land Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the sixth defendant, but the appeal filed by him was allowed. That order was challenged by Arjunabai Ammal in C.R.P.No.143 of 1981. C.R.P.No.143 of 1981 was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority. At that time, it would appear that a settlement was arrived at by Padmavathi Ammal and Arjunabai Ammal on the one hand and the sixth defendant on the other and a family arrangement was executed among them. It is submitted that the various proceedings would indicate that the case put forward by the sixth defendant is not true and that he was bent upon getting the property for himself even though he raised a contention that his sisters had absolute right over the property. The A.S.NO.5 OF 1996 :: 19:: learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in 1957 the property was gifted by O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar in favour of defendants 2 to 5 and the sixth defendant, under which the sixth defendant had one-half right in the property. That gift deed was cancelled by O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar and thereafter he executed Ext.A1 dated 21.2.1958. The counsel pointed out that in the 1957 and 1958 settlement deeds O.N.Venketarama Chettiyar asserted that the property was acquired by him in the