MRS. S. GOWRI Vs. RAJA @ MOHANA RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.1986 rendered in O.S. No. 2731 of 1982 by the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras thereby dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit property for damages for use and occupation of her half share by the defendants from 15.8.1981 till the date of the plaint amounting to Rs. 4,200.00 for future damages at the rate of Rs. 600.00 per month from the date of the plaint till the date of delivery of her half share and for costs.

(2.) Tracing the history of the case, it comes to be known that the appellant has filed the suit before the Trial Court on averments such that the suit property bearing Door No. 10, Varadarajaperumal Chetty Street, Madras-2l a house property is the property of late Mangalakshmi Ammal that the said Mangalakshmi Ammal and her husband Arumuga Nadar were issue less and hence when the plaintiff was about four days old, they have taken the plaintiff in adoption according to Hindu customs and rituals in the year 1949 and from that day onwards the plaintiff was with her adoptive parents only, who educated her and also performed her marriage on 8.9.1968; that even after her marriage, the plaintiff was only with her adoptive parents; that the first defendant is the son of the deceased Mangalakshmi Ammal's younger sister; that Mangalakshmi Ammal during her lifetime purchased the suit property for valuable consideration under the registered sale deed dated 20.10.1954 from out of her own funds and was in possession and enjoyment of the said property till her death on 3.7.1978 intestate; that after the death of Mangalakshmi Ammal, her husband inherited the suit property who was alive then and the plaintiff and each of them is entitled to half share in the said property.

(3.) The further averments of the plaint are that Arumuga Nadar during his old age was unhealthy and the plaintiff was attending on him periodically; that during that period, the first defendant and his mother also used to visit the house of Arumuga Nadar after which was objected to by the plaintiff; that under the pretext of helping and assisting the said Arumuga Nadar, the first defendant and his mother prevailed upon him and exercising undue influence got some document executed on 7.7.1981 in favour of the second defendant who is the wife of the first defendant and her children in the nature of settlement, which was not known to the plaintiff and even Arumuga Nadar did not reveal anything about the said document to the plaintiff; that on the death of Arumuga Nadar on 15.8.1981, when the plaintiff was in the suit house, the first defendant and his mother trespassed and occupied the same illegally; that on death of Arumuga Nadar, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property for the share of Arumuga Nadar devolved on her; that Arumuga Nadar has no right to settle the entire suit property in favour of any person since he was the owner of only half share therein, the other half belonging to the plaintiff being the adoptive daughter. With such and other averments and alleging the settlement deed dated 7.7.1981 is a void document, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief extracted supra.