ANNAPOORNI Vs. JANAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an extraordinary case demanding this Court's invoking its suo motu powers under Section 115 C.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in order to prevent the perpetuation of grave and gross injustice caused by the trial court's overlooking an express provision of law.

(2.) FACTS are as follows: The parties will be referred to according to their array in the suit. The plaintiff is the wife of one Velu, who died on 15-7-1983. The defendant is his mother. The plaintiff has filed the suit O.S. No. 170 of 1984 for a declaration of her title to the property described in the plaint and for delivery of possession of the same by the defendant. In the plaint, it is stated that the husband of the plaintiff had saved money from his salary earned by him on employment in a milk depot and kept it in the custody of his mother, with the aid of which, he purchased the suit property on 13-6-1979. The amount had been paid on 9-6-1976 from out of the money kept by the plaintiff's husband with his mother, the defendant, to the vendor. The plaintiff married the deceased Velu on 1-7-1982, and as there was some misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff decided to live separately. She was taken to her father's place in Karumbur village on 13-7-1983 by her husband, who returned to Karaikudi on 14-7-1983 and wrote a letter to her. The plaintiff got information that her husband died on 15-7-1983 and rushed to Karaikudi, but even before her arrival, the body was cremated. The property was purchased with the self-acquired funds of the plaintiff's husband and nobody other than the plaintiff is his heir. The plaintiff is a Class I heir under the Hindu Succession Act. The defendant has taken the sale deed into her custody, taking advantage of the death of her son and has been preventing the plaintiff from enjoying the property from 27-11-1983. The plaintiff owned several jewels and vessels which were brought as ?Stridhana? to her husband's house. The plaintiff would file a separate suit with regard to the same. The defendant has no right whatever in the suit property and she was bound to deliver possession to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has prayed for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

(3.) THE defendant filed I.A. 734 of 1985 for setting aside the exparte decree and it was allowed on 3-4-1987. THE suit was posted for trial once agar to 17-6-1987. On that day too, the defendant remained exparte and the plaintiff examined her father as P.W. 1. Two documents were marked as Ex. A-1 and A-2. THE suit was decreed exparte on the basis of the evidence. THE trial court granted a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and directed the defendant to deliver possession on or before 17-8-1987 to the plaintiff.