SUBRAMANIAM Vs. PERIYASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Legal Representatives of the 3rd defendant and 4th defendant who lost in both the Courts are the appellants.

(2.) 1st respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction and for damages. The case of the 1st respondent/ plaintiff was that the suit property and other properties originally belonged to one Panjan and his Pankalis and in the oral partition that took place 30 years before, the suit properties were allotted to the share of Panjan and the plaintiff is the brother's son of Panjan. According to the plaintiff/ 1st respondent, Panjan had a wife by name Thangammal and she is the only wife of Panjan and Panjan died 20 years leaving behind his widow Thangammal as his legal heir. As the plaintiff was the brother's son of Panjan, the plaintiff was brought up by Thangammal and she executed a document Ex.A3 dated 31.8.1976 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and therefore the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property and the appellants or any other persons can not claim any right over the same. It is further stated that Panjan had not married one Mulavi Ammal and through her the 2nd defendant and one Akilandammal were not born and as Mulavi Ammal was not the legally wedded wife of Panjan, the 2nd defendant and Akilandammal can not claim any right to the Panjan's property and therefore the suit is filed for declaration.

(3.) THE following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal: (1) Whether the Courts below are right in ignoring the best evidence available before it and should it not have held that the non-examination of his vendor or person connected with Ex.A3 is fatal to his case ? (2) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that Thangammal is the exclusive owner of the property particularly when the evidence on record establishes that Panjan is survived by his children through his second wife ?