AGOTHARAM PILLAI Vs. MAHALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments advanced by Mr.V. Anand, learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) THE legal representatives of the first defendant in the original suit are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiff in the original suit figures as the first respondent. The other respondents are Defendants 2 to 6 in the Original Suit. The suit was filed by the first respondent Mahalakshmi Ammal for declaring her to be the absolute owner of the suit properties and for a consequential perpetual injunction not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Agotharam Pillai, had been arrayed as the first defendant. Respondents 2 to 6 in the second appeal had been arrayed as Defendants 2 to 6 in the Original suit. Respondents 2 to 6/Defendants 2 to 6 did not contest the suit and they remained ex parte Agotharam Pillai, the first defendant, alone contested the suit by fling a written statement and also an additional written statement.

(3.) THE first defendant Agotharam Pillai also filed an additional written statement in which also no specific denial of execution of the maintenance deed was made. On the other hand, the first defendant had taken a stand that the settlement under the maintenance deed was not acted upon and Kalyani Ammal was not in possession when the Hindu Succession Act came into force to cause enlargement of her limited estate into an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Besides making such an averment, the first defendant had also stated that after the filing of the suit, taking advantage of the ex parte decree and also an order of interim injunction, plaintiff took possession of the first item of the suit properties and the first defendant was contemplating measures in a separate proceeding for the retrieval of possession of the first item from the plaintiff.