KESAVA PILLAI Vs. KAMALAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are respondents 1 to 4 in O. P. No. 73 of 1962 on the file of the district Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the petition under Ss. 62, 63 and 67 of the Indian Lunacy Act for directing inquisition for the purpose of finding out whether Kumara Pillai is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs and for passing suitable orders for his custody and the management of his estate. The second respondent is the son of the first respondent who claims to have married Kumara Pillai as his second wife in Avani 1119 M. E. The appellants are the sons and daughters of Kumara Pillai through his first wife Ponnammal and they dispute the alleged marriage between the first respondent Kamalammal and their father. The third respondent Ponnamlla was impleaded as the fifth respondent in O. P. No. 73 of 1962 on the file of the lower court on the ground that she had filed O. S. No. 41 of 1962 on the file of the subordinate Judge's Court, Nagercoil, claiming to be the second wife of adhikesavaperumal Pillai, the father of Kumara Pillai. The learned District Judge has found that Kumara Pillai is a lunatic who cannot manage his affairs and to whom a proper guardian has to be appointed to look after him and a manager for his estate. An advocate-Receiver was appointed to manage the estate of Kumara pillai. Though the learned District Judge found that the first respondent kamalammal was not the legally wedded wife of Kumara Pillai, he considered her to be a fit and proper person to be appointed as the guardian of Kumara Pillai. Aggrieved with this order, the legitimate children of Kumara Pillai have come forward with this appeal.

(2.) THERE is no dispute about the fact that Kumara Pillai is a lunatic, who is incapable of managing his person and properties. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari, erred in appointing the first respondent Kamalammal as the guardian of the person of Kumara Pillai in spite of his having negatived her status as his second wife.

(3.) THE evidence of P. W. 1 Kamalammal, the first respondent herein, is that she married Kumara Pillai on the representation that his first wife was not alive and that she begot children through him. The learned District Judge found the marriage of Kamalammal with Kumara Pillai invalid as his first wife died only subsequently. The contention of the appellants is that the first respondent kamalammal was only working in the house as a servant woman and looking after kumara Pillai. But it is not possible to accept this plea. It is clear from the evidence of P. W. 1 Kamalammal that after her marriage with Kumara Pillai, she lived with her husband and his parents in Kanyakumari for one year and then they all shifted of Eravipudur where they resided for four years, that afterwards they went and lived in Vilangadu for fourteen years and subsequently came back to kanyakumari. Her evidence is that the appellants herein never used to visit kumara Pillai at any of the places where she lived with him. She stated that her husband has not attended the marriages of the appellants 2 to 4. She stated that she was attending to Kumara Pillai, feeding him and looking after him and that he was not used to take food from persons other than herself and her daughter bhagavathi Ammai aged 15 years. P. W. 1 Kamalammal deposed that she was on cordial terms with her parents-in-law and that her mother-in-law had settled properties in favour of herself and her children. It is on these grounds that she claimed to be the fit person to be appointed as the guardian of Kumara Pillai. It is significant to note that there has been practically no cross-examination on several of these matters spoken to by her. It was no doubt elicited from P. W. 1 that in Ex. A. 3 she had been described as a servant woman and that in Ex. B1 there was a recital that Kamalammal was taken to help Kumara Pillai. But irrespective of the question whether P. W. 1 Kamalammal was a concubine or not, there can be no doubt that she alone was looking after Kumara Pillai from 1119 M. E. when she claims to have married him.