R MEENAKSHI AMMAL Vs. VELUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and the first respondent are brother and sister. The first respondent claims to have been given in adoption to his maternal aunt. The appellant's case is that there was no such adoption. This in brief is the crux of the dispute.

(2.) The history of the case starts with one Seenia Pillai who had two daughters, Kanneyee Ammal and Pechi Ammal. Kanneyee Ammal was married to Karuppiah Pillai and Pechi Ammal was married to Subba Pillai alias Pal'aniya Pillai. Pechi Ammal had no issues. Kanneyee Ammal had two children who are the appellant and the first respondent. Karuppiah Pillai died in 1936; Kanneyee Ammal died in 1937. The first respondent claims that the adoption took place sometime in 1935 or 1936. Subba Pillai died in 1952 and Pechi Ammal died on 9-2-1977. It is clear from the materials on record that the first respondent was brought up by the aunt Pechi Animal and naturally so, since he was about 7 years old when his parents died and the appellant was about one or two years old at that time. But the fact that they brought them up will not be a proof of adoption. In 1978, the appellant filed this suit claiming partition of the property belonging to Seenia Pillai which had devolved on his two daughters.

(3.) . In the written statement, the first respondent claimed to have been given in adoption in or about 1935 by his natural parents to Subba Pillai alias Palania Pillai and Pechi Animal. According to him, Pechi Ammal also brought up the appellant since she was an orphan and had met her marriage expenses by selling certain properties.