APPAVOO PILLAI Vs. VIJAYAMBAL AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals are connected and they are now heard together.

(2.) L. P. A. 3 of 1965:-This appeal has been filed with leave of Srinivasan J. , against S. A. No. 1243 of 1964 confirming the decisions of the courts below. The facts of the case are as follows: One Ramakrishna Pillai had two sons Arunachala and Appavoo. Arunchala's first wife Rathinathammal died in 1922 leaving no children and Arunachala died on 12-9-1949. Prior to his death certain proceedings in Court, to which he was a party, were pending and they were (1) O. S. 218 of 1943 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pudukottai, filed by one Sachidanandam Pillai against the assets of Ramakrishna Pillai in the hands of Arunachala and Appavoo and (2) A. S. 401 of 1949 on the file of the District Court, Tiruchirapalli. Vijayambal, the respondent in the above appeal applied herself in the above pending proceedings to be impleaded as heir of Arunachala, her deceased husband, on the ground that she was his legally wedded wife. In the proceedings in O. S. 218 of 1943, her claims to the legally wedded status was negatived, while the District Court in A. S. 401 of 1949 upheld her legal status. She filed C. R. P. Nos. 1343 and 1344 of 1954 to this Court against the order denying her married status and her husband's brother Ayyavoo, who denied her married status and who had filed applications recognising himself as legal representative filed C. M. A. 225 of 1952 to the High Court against the order of the learned District Judge upholding her status as legally wedded wife. This appeal would appear to have been converted into a revision petition and on 2-10-1954 this court in the Civil revision Petitions filed by Vijayambal and the converted revision petition of appavoo negatived her legal status as a lawfully wedded wife. Vijayambal thereupon filed O. S. 34 of 1955 in the Subordinate Judge's Court, pudukottai, for declaration of her status as a legally wedded wife and heir of the deceased Arunachala and for recovery of possession of the plaint A and B schedule and for direction to the defendant to render an account in respect of rents and profits of the suit property from 12-9-1949 (the date of death of arunachala) upto the date of recovery of possession. Her case is that her marriage with Arunachala took place in a temple on 26-11-1936 in accordance with the custom of the community to which she and Arunachala belonged, that Arunachala tied the tali around the neck of the plaintiff, that after the marriage Arunachala lived with her separately owing to misunderstandings between her husband and his brother, that about 9 years after the marriage Arunachala sent her to killukottai, her native village, directing her to live with her mother for safety, as he had instituted a suit for partition against his brother, Appavoo, in the Chief Court, pudukottai, and in the District Court, Tanjore, and during the pendency of those proceedings he used to visit her once in two or three months, that he did not want to take his wife back, during the pendency of the court proceedings. Arunachala died in Tiruvadi in December, 1949, she thereupon applied to implead herself as heir of her husband in the proceedings arising out of O. S. 218 of 1943 and A. S. 401 of 1949, that Appavoo (the husband's brother) falsely denied her married status, that the decision in the applications filed and the order of the High Court in the revision petitions denying her married status arose only out of summary proceedings and that the decision therein cannot preclude her from instituting the present suit for declaration of her status.

(3.) APPAVOO, the defendant in the suit filed a written statement contending that his brother Arunachala married Rathinathammal; but denied that he ever married the plaintiff, Vijayambal, that Vijayambal's marriage to Arunachala is not true, that the allegations regarding her stay in Pudukottai are false, that the ultimate decision of the High Court in the revision petitions will operate as res judicata precluding her from agitating the same claim once again in the present suit. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff sold Items 1 and 2 of B Schedule to lakshmana Chettiar, who instituted a suit O. S. 337 of 1953 on the file of the district Munsif Court, Pudukottai, against him and others for possession, that the said suit was dismissed negativing Vijayambal's legally marriage status and that the said decision also would operate as res judicata.