LAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. RAMACHANDRA NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 144 of 1977 in the Court of the District Munsif of Ranipet, is the appellant. THE suit was filed for declaration of the title of the plaintiff to the suit properties and for permanent injunction. THE plaintiff-s case was that the suit properties were the ancestral properties belonging to him and his father, that his father was in possession and and enjoyment of the same till his death in or about 1954, that his father purported to execute a will dated 30th May, 1952 in favour of the defendant bequeathing the suit properties to be enjoyed by her after the lifetime of the plaintiff, that the defendant had not taken delivery of the properties at any time, that the suit properties were in his possession, that the will would be invalid and that in any event, he has perfected title to the same by adverse possession. THE defendant filed a written statement contending that in pursuance of the will, she got title to the suit properties, that she was in possession and enjoyment in her own right, that the suit properties were her father-s separate properties and not joint family property and that there is no question of the plaintiff perfecting title to suit properties by adverse possession as he was never in possession.

(2.) THE learned District Munsif, Vellore, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had no title to the suit properties that the suit properties were not ancestral properties, and that they could be the subject of a bequest in favour of the defendant. THE matter was taken on appeal by the plaintiff and the learned Subordinate Judge, after examining the relevant contentions in the light of the evidence, come to the conclusion that the suit properties were ancestral properties, and that he was entitled to the relief of injunction. Treating the will to be invalid, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendant could not get any title to the suit properties THE second appeal has been filed by the defendant.

(3.) THE only question that arises for consideration is whether on the footing that the suit properties are joint family properties, the document, dated 30th May, 1952 was a valid one. THE plaintiff is the son of one Manickam and the defendant is the plaintiff-s sister. THE document dated 30th May, 1952 is drafted in the form of a will. It refers to the defendant being the daughter of the testator and declares that the property described in the schedule thereunder would be enjoyed by her without any powers of alienation and that if she died without any issue, then the property would revert to the plaintiff. If she had any issue, then the property would be absolutely enjoyed by the said issues. It is significant to note that the plaintiff has not signed the document as an attesting witness but as if he is a joint executant. It is not in dispute that the defendant, though married, had some difficulties in her married life and that therefore, she had come back to the family of her birth. THE intention of Manicka was obviously to provide for the defendant because she would otherwise be without any source of maintenance.