CONSTANCE RANI Vs. KRISHNARAJ @ NATARAJAN (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

(2.) The plaintiff filed O.S.No.442 of 1996 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram for the relief of declaration of title and possession over 'A' schedule property and declaration of title and recovery of possession over 'B' schedule property. The suit was dismissed. As against the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.127 of 2000 before the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. The said first appeal was also dismissed. As against which, the present second appeal has been filed.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was originally owned by her father namely Muthaian Nadar who passed away on 27/10/1995 and her mother had also passed away on 4/11/1995 leaving behind the plaintiff as the sole legal heir. The plaintiff further contended that while her father was alive, he did not take care of the plaintiff and her mother and hence, both of them filed O.S.No.164 of 1977 seeking maintenance before the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. In I.A.No.396 of 1977, an order of attachment was passed with regard to the suit schedule property. But later, the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.209 of 1978 and it was partly allowed granting maintenance in favour of the plaintiff alone. In order to defraud the maintenance rights, the father of the plaintiff had executed Exhibits B1 to B6 sale deeds in favour of the first defendant.