G SESHAGIRI Vs. D PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to revise the order of the learned district Munsif, Sholinghur, dated 9th September, 1981, made in I. A. No. 2551 of 1980 in O. S. No. 759 of 1974 on his file, allowing the amendment of the plaint as prayed for on condition of the respondent-plaintiff paying a sum of rs. 100 as costs to the revision petitioners defendants and of his paying the additional Court-fee, if any.

(2.) THE above suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession of the same on the basis of a will dated 7th December, 1959 alleged to have been executed in his favour by his father. THE petitioners-defendants filed a written statement denying the execution of the will by the palintiff's father thus denying the plain tiff's title to the suit property.

(3.) BEFORE adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel, I feel that it would be better to notice certain admitted facts of the case. The plaintiff is the son of one Doraiswami Mudaliar. The second defendant is the daughter of the above said Doraiswami Mudaliar. The first and third defendants are the husband and son respectively of the second defendant. The plaintiff would aver that the various items of the plaint schedule properties were purchased by his father Dorasiwami Mudaliar under various sale deeds and that he executed a will in 1959 bequeathing all plaint schedule properties to him absolutely, and that his father died at Madras on 23rd January, 1960. The execution of the will is totally denied by the defendants who would allege that the sale deeds were taken in the name of Doraiswami Mudaliar benami for the benefit of the first defendant so as to avoid any possible claim from the first defendant's brothers and therefore the plaintiff has no title to the plaint schedule properties. Thus, it is seen that the basis of the main relief as well as the alternative relief in the plaint is that the plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Doraiswami Mudaliar, while defence of the defendants is that the properties really belonged to the first defendant by virtue of the benami nature of the sale deeds taken in the name of doraiswami Mudaliar.