(1.) The second appeal against the concurrent finding of the Courts below in the suit for partition carry certain strange facts resulting in intrinsic question of law, which calls for consideration of this Court under section 100 of the CPC.
(2.) One Thangaraj s/o Padaikathu Odaiyar died in the year 1967. He predeceased his parents. He had a brother by name Thangavel and two sisters. His father and mother had landed properties and those properties are the subject matter of the suit.
(3.) In the year 1993, almost 26 years after the demise of Thangaraj, suit for partition was laid by Dhanabagiyam and her son Velayutham claiming that, they are the wife and son of Thangaraj. According to their plaint, Thangaraj was ardent follower of EVR Periyar. A strong votary of social justice, widow remarriage and women's right. In the year 1957, he married Dhanbagiyam a widow. It was a suyamariyathai marriage (form of marriage san religious rituals, propagated by EVR Periyar. On introduction of Section 7 A in Hindu Marriage Act through a State amendment in the year 1967, such form of marriage held to be good and valid in law with retrospective effect). The second plaintiff Velayutham was born to them in the year 1958. Padaikathu Odaiyar died in the year 1976 about 17 years prior to the suit. His wife Manikathammal died in the year 1986 about 6 years prior to the suit. (Neither in the pleadings nor through documents the date of death of Thangaraj, Padaikathu Odaiyar and Manikathammal provided). The "A" schedule properties held in the name of Padaikathu Odaiyar are ancestral properties. The "B" schedule properties in the name of Manikathammal are her self-acquired properties. Both died intestate, so after their demise the properties has to devolve on their legal heirs. The first plaintiff Dhanbagïyam as wife of the deceased Thangaraj and Velayutham as her son through Thangaraj, sought partition and claiming 1/3rd share in the "A" schedule properties and 1/4th share in the "B" schedule properties.