MADANAVALLI ALIAS SOWBAGYAMMAL Vs. THANGAVELU PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property forming the subject-matter of this second appeal originally belonged to one. Govinda Padayachi. He died, leaving behind his daughter, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 310 of 1955, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Tirukoilur, and a widow, the 2nd defendant in that suit. The 2nd defendant, having inherited the property as the limited heir under the Hindu law, alienated the property in favour of the first defendant under Ex. B. 2, dated 7-8-1940. The third defendant in the suit was impleaded as a person who had married the second defendant after the death of Govinda Padayachi. The plaintiff's case was that the alienation by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant was not for a purpose valid and binding upon the reversioners of the estate of Govinda Padayachi, and that, though normally she, as the presumptive revei-sioner of the estate of Govinda Padayachi, could not sue for recovery of possession of the property, she was entitled to recover possession by reason of the second defendant's marriage with the third defendant, which, according to her, attracted the provisions of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, (Act XV of 1858) causing forfeiture of her rights as a Hindu widow.

(2.) The learned District Munsiff o? Tirukoilur who tried the suit found that the alienation impugned by the plaintiff was not valid and binding upon the plaintiff and that the marriage of the second defendant with the third defendant caused a forfeiture of her rights as a Hindu widow by reason of the provisions of Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, and accordingly, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

(3.) The first defendant preferred an appeal, A. S. No. 279 of 1957, on the file of the District Court, South Arcot. The learned appellate Judge concurred with the finding of the trial court, on the question of the validity of the alienation by the 2nd defendant in favour of the first defendant. But the learned District Judge was of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the suit property from the alienee (the first defendant) as the provisions of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Ace cannot be invoked, the marriage of the second defendant with the third defendant being a void marriage under Madras Act VI of 1949. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge granted a mere decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff that the alienation by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant was not valid and binding on the plaintiff, but negatived the relief for recovery of possession sought for by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed this second appeal seeking to have the decree of the trial court restored.