G S SADASHIVA Vs. M C SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. F. A. 716/1997 is filed by the 1st defendant. R. F. A. 634/1997 is of the 2nd defendant. These two appeals are arising out of common judgment passed in O. S. No. 1058/1995. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the defendants to declare that he alone is entitled to succeed to the estate of late Smt. Bharathi and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants 2 to 7 from making any payments to defendant No. 1.

(2.) AS per the plaint averments, 1st defendant who is the appellant in the first appeal is the father-in-law and that the plaintiff married the daughter of Sadashiva, G. S. Bharathi on 4-4-1986 at Bangalore. At the time of marriage, the plaintiff was working as Assistant Manager in N. G. E. F. , Bangalore and that Bharathi was working as a teacher in Government High School. On 21-11-1987, the plaintiff's wife committed suicide. After the death of his wife, at the instance of the 1st defendant, he was also charge-sheeted under Sections 308 and 498-A of IPC in S. C. No. 231/91 and that he was honourably acquitted by the Sessions Court. Against the Judgment of the Sessions Court, the Government had also filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court has confirmed the order of acquittal. The 1st defendant - the father-in-law also filed a suit against the order made in O. S. No. 2865/98 for a declaration and for injunction claiming exclusive right over the properties of Bharathi and the said suit came to be dismissed on 28-7-1994 for non-prosecution. Therefore, he filed a suit for declaration and for injunction. The 1st defendant appeared before the Court and filed a detailed written statement. According to him, his daughter was murdered by the plaintiff on 21-11-1987, and therefore the plaintiff is dis-qualified under the law to claim the properties of his daughter. The 1st defendant has relied upon Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 ('the Act' for short) and he has requested the Court to dismiss the suit. The 2nd defendant contended that an amount of Rs. 28,101/- was paid to the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant and according to the 2nd defendant, on the application of the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant has honoured the claim of the 1st defendant as he was a nominee and therefore, the 2nd defendant requested the Court to dismiss the case.

(3.) BASED on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed :