RAMASWAMY THEVAR Vs. ESAKKI THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit properties consist of a house and a nanja land of 65 cents in extent. The house originally belonged to one Muthuswami Thevar, the paternal uncle's son of the plaintiff, who died leaving his widow, Madathi and a son Sudalayandi. After the death of Muthuswami, Madathi remarried one Esakki Thevar, the first defendant in the suit in 1932 to whom she begot the other defendants in the suit. After the remarriage of Madathi she purchased 35 cents of nanja lands in the name of Sudalayandi and the remaining 30 cents were purchased by her in her own name. Sudalayandi predeceased his mother. Madathi also died in the year 1960. Under these circumstances the plaintiff filed the suit O. S. No. 351 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ambasamudram for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the same with future mesne profits.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the first defendant and his children by Madathi defendants 2 to 5, contending that Madathi had purchased 30 cents shown as Item 1 with her own funds that though Sudalayandi purchased 35 cents suit Item 2 with his funds Madathi had succeeded his son Sudalayandi to the said 35 cents and the house which he inherited from his father, Muthuswami Thevar, under the Hindu succession Act.

(3.) THE trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff has succeeded to the suit properties as the heir of Sudalayandi. On appeal, the lower appellate court had taken the view that the northern 35 cents i. e. , suit Item 2 had been purchased under Ex. B-1 with the funds of the estate of Muthuswami in the name of Sudalayandi, while the other 30 cents were purchased under Ex. B-2 with the funds of Madathi got from the second husband, the first defendant, and that in any event the plaintiff had no title to the said 30 cents purchased in the name of madathi after her remarriage. As regards the house and 35 cents of land in the name of Sudalayandi the lower appellate court held that they have been inherited by Madathi after the death of Sudalayandi and that her remarriage with the first defendant will not disable her from inheriting the same. The lower appellate court also found that Madathi has perfected title by adverse possession to the suit properties and that the suit having been filed more than 12 years after the death of Sudalayandi, the plaintiff cannot seek to recover possession.