1963 appellant, however, is that the subsequent conduct of the Kanakaratha- parties and particularly the corresr,iondence produced by the """"nal 9 ap;iellant clearly showed that the appellant's father admitted Y. s. L. Mudaliar the title of the appellant's mother, and it is urged that the Gaiendragadkar 1• High ~ourt was in error in reversing the finding of the tnal Court that the property really belonged to the appellant's mother. In order to deal with the merits of this argument, it is necessary to refer to the material correspondence on which the ap?ellant relies. Exhibit B is a letter written by the appellant's father to her (appellant's) husband on the 1st August, 1944. In this letter, the appellant's father has used words which clearly show that he treated the property as belonging to his wife. He says "she (the ap;iellant's mother) tells me that you almost agreed to come and stay in the estate and for that purpose she kas asked me not to let out both the houses occupied by Iyer", and then he adds, "she says that she will give Rs. 50 a month with the above free quarters". Then on the 21st June, 1945, a letter was addressed to the SuL-Division Officer, Bangalore Sub-Division, Bangalore, by the appellant's mother (Exbt. H). This letter is in relation to the properties with which we are concerned, and it has been addressed clearly and unambiguously on the basis that the title to the property vests in the ap;>ellant's mother. In the course of this letter, she says that about the 10th May, 1945, the authorities of the Hindustan Aircraft approached her through her husband for permission to put up and install a few electric lights against the runway to the length of about 700 or thereabouts, and that she gave them the permission on the strict understanding that the rest of her plantation should not be disturbed.
