P MARIAMMAL Vs. PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant who has lost before both the Courts below, has come forward with the instant Second Appeal.

(2.) This Second Appeal has arisen in this way one Athinarayanan had two sisters by name, Kamalatchi and Kuppammal. Kamalatchi was given in marriage one Perumal. Perumal, Kamalatchi couple had two sons and four daughters, by name Irulappan, Periakaruppan, Chellammal, Mariammal (who is the appellant herein) Savuriammal and Ramayee. Irulappan had a daughter by name, Pushpam. Kuppammal was given in marriage to one Sermal. We are not concerned with Kuppammal's family. Athinarayanan's wife was one Gnanammal. Through Gnanammal, Athinarayanan begot three children, by name, Rajaiah, Padmanabhan, (the respondent herein), and Jothiammal. Jothiammal was given in marriage to one Velusamy. Jothiammal died on 15-4-1984 we are not concerned with Jothiammal's family also. Athinarayanan's wife Gnanammal was a Christian by birth, who was given in marriage to one Devasagayam alias Mottian, through him, she begot a daughter by Mary Thyamal. Somewhere during 1925-1926, a divorce has been effected and Devasagayam and Gnanammal got separated. Thereafterwards, Gnanammal married Athinarayanan and begot children. Mariammal, the appellant herein who is a sister's daughter of Athinarayanan was given in marriage to one Manikatti during 1961. According to the appellant Mariammal, Manikatti became a converted Christian and marriaged on Pabuthai. Because Manikatti became a Christian and married another woman, a divorce was effected between Manikatti and Mariammal during 1967 or 1968. According to the appellant herein she married Rajaiah the brother of the respondent herein on 4-7-1969. According to her, she is the legally wedded wife of Rajaiah. Rajaiah died on 1-7-1979 or 2-7-1979. According to the respondent, the suit properties were purchased in the name of Rajaiah utilising the joint fund of Rajaiah and the respondent, and that the appellant herein falsely claiming herself as the wife of Rajaiah, claimed rights in the suit properties, which made him to file a suit for declaration of his title and also for the relief of injunction and in the alternative for delivery of possession.

(3.) The appellant herein as defendant, countered the case of the respondent/plaintiff contending that her marriage between Maniketti and herself was dissolved by divorce during 1968 and later, she married Rajaiah during 1969 that she is the legally wedded wife of Rajaiah and that the properties were the absolute properties of Rajaiah and therefore, the respondent /Plaintiff cannot claim any right, title or interest in the properties.