VEDAVALLIAMMALE Vs. VENKATARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON JUDGMENT The appellant in both the appeals is the first defendant Vedavalliammale in O.S.No.58 of 1982 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.

(2.) The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.

(3.) One Ramaraja filed the suit O.S.No.58 of 1982 for declaration that he is the legal heir of the deceased Kannusamy Row, great grand son of Vengadasala Naicker to whom the suit property originally belonged to and also for declaration that the sale deed dated 11.7.1959 executed by Thayanayagy Ammal, the mother of Kannusamy Row, in favour of Vedavalliammale, the first defendant, is null and void, since she has no right legally to alienate. The suit property is a house situated at No.9/35 Savaripadatchi Street, Nellithope, Pondicherry. It originally belonged to the plaintiff's grand father Vengadasala Naicker. Vengadasala Naicker, as per the Notorial Donation Deed dated 15.12.1896, donated the suit property in favour of his minor grand sons Radja Row and Kichnadji Row, both are the sons of Ponnusamy Naicker. As per Notorial Donation Deed, Ponnusamy Naicker was appointed as guardian to his minor sons and the donees had no right to alienate the suit property and only their male legal heirs are entitled full right of the suit property. The donee Kichnadji Row died issueless and the other donee Radja Row became the full usufructuary owner of the suit property. Radja Row died leaving his wife Thayanayagy Ammal and only son Kannusamy Row. Kannusamy Row also died issueless leaving behind, his wife Kuppammal and his mother Thayanayagy Ammal. On the death of Kannusamy Row, the suit property should only devolve upon the male heirs. Since the deceased Radja Row died issueless, the suit property has to go to the male reversioner and the surviving heir, viz., Radja Row's cousin brother, the plaintiff Ramaraja. When the plaintiff Ramaraja tried to enforce his right, Radja Row's wife Thayanayagy Ammal objected to his status and in order to circumvent the legal right of the plaintiff, Thayanayagy Ammal without any right, sold the suit property to the first defendant Vedavalliammale on 11.7.1959. The plaintiff informed his legal status to the first defendant Vedavalliammale and she did not heed at all. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit in the then French Court of Tribunal of First Instance against Vedavalliammale on 28.2.1962 for a direction that the plaintiff is the heir of the deceased Radja Row and also for a direction that the first defendant not to waste the suit property. The said Court as per judgment dated 18.8.1965 declared that since Thayanayagy Ammal still living, the claim of the plaintiff is premature, but, however, the Court appointed the Commissioner Mr.Ranganathan to inspect the suit property and to report about the condition of the building. In the appeal in A.S.No.725 of 1965 filed by Vedavalliammale before the Third Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, Vedavalliammale did not press the finding of the Court as to whether the plaintiff is legal heir to the deceased Radja Row and resisted the appeal only with regard to the fact of appointment of commissioner to find out as to whether any repair is necessary for the suit building. The appeal in A.S.No.725 of 1965 was allowed on 2.2.1970 that no repair is necessary for the suit building, but confirmed the judgment of the lower Court with regard to the legal status of the plaintiff. Thayanayagy Ammal died on 30.5.1978. The plaintiff informed the first defendant and her husband, the second defendant Codandabany alias Oulagaratchaga Naicker about his legal status as the surviving male legal heir of Kannusamy Row. But still the defendants 1 and 2 leased out the suit property to the defendants 3 to 9 and and they are receiving the rents from the defendants 3 to 9. Hence, defendants 3 to 9 have been added as formal parties. The plaintiff caused a lawyer notice on 13.11.1979 to the first defendant and to her tenants. The first defendant replied denying the legal status of the plaintiff as owner of the suit property. So, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the reliefs as stated above. During the pendency of the suit, 10th defendant has been added as party as per order in I.A.No.6377 of 1982 in view of the purchase of the suit property from the first defendant as per sale deed dated 26.4.1980.