SAROJINI AMMAL Vs. NAVAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VENKATAPATHY Reddiar of Virkravandi, South Arcot District, married his sister's daughter Rajalakshmi, the fifth plaintiff in the suit, out of which this appeal arises, in or about 1935 and begot on her two daughters, and two sons, who are plaintiff's 1 to 4. It is claimed by the first defendant that he married her in 1947 and defendants 2 to 5 were born to them. VENKATAPATHY Reddiar died on 11-9-1956. Disputes arose between the parties in 1974, which resulted in the present suit. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein, prayed for a declaration of their exclusive title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering with their possession of the properties. The plaintiff's denied not only the marriage between the first defendant and Venkatapthy, but also the status of exclusively kept concubine for the first defendant According to them, VENKATAPATHY had only some ?illicit intimacy? with h:r. Reference was placed in the plaint to an admission made by the first defendant in several proceedings that she was only a concubine of the deceased and that she never asserted any status as his wedded wife. It was also isserted in th e plaint that the first defendant being a Christian, there could not be a valid marriage betwecn her and VENKATAPATHY.

(2.) IN the written statement it was pleaded that the first defendant settled in Vikravandi in about 1944 and she completed her 18th year and started doing milk business. According to the written statement, she abandoned Christianity and converted to Hindu faith openly declaring herself to be a Hindu and since then observing all the religious rites, which behoved a Hindu woman. It was stated that Venkatapathy Reddiar courted her which led to the marriage between them according to Hindu rites and they were l iving together as husband and wife along with the plaintiff's in amity as members, of a Hindu joint family. Defendants 2 to :> were born of lawful wedlock and all the defendants would be entitled to a share in the estate of Venkatapathy Reddiar as much as'the plaintiffs. An explanation was given in the written statement that Venkatapathy Reddiar was ill-advised after the passing of Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 that he would be guilty of bigamy and, therefore, he started describing the first defendant as ?Abhimana Baryal? in documents, which would not alter the status of the first defendant from that of a lawfully wedded wife to that of a concubine.

(3.) THE judgment of the trial court is no better, though the trial Judge has discussed the evidence at some length and given definite findings. THE conclusions of the trial Judge' are not acceptable as they are based on an erroneous view of the law on the subject. He has chosen to reject positive evidence on irrelevant grounds and overlook preponderating circumstance admitted to exist in the case. Thus, it has become necessary for this Court to approach the evidence on record independently of the judgment of the Court below and come to a conclusion on facts also.