SOLAIAMMAL Vs. RAJARATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. This revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Thuraiyur in I.A. No. 552 of 2000 in O.S. No. 285 of 1997 (dated 10.11.2000) holding that the District Munsif Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit O.S. No. 285 of 1997.

(2.) This Revision is based on the following-facts: Plaintiff is the wife of deceased Chinnapoovan. Chinnapoovan had his elder brother by name Periyapoovan. D1 to D3 are the sons of Periyapoovan. Suit property is comprised in two schedules-A Schedule refers to three items of landed property and house property. B Schedule refers to Bank Deposits in Nationalised Banks-shown as defendants 4 to 6. Chinnapoovan died on 13/9/1997. Case of Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff is that Dl to D3 have no interest or right in the suit property. On 13.9.1997 under the pretext of taking Chinnapoovan to Hospital, Dl to D3 had taken Chinnapoovan to Thuraiyur and fraudulently included their names as nominees for the Fixed Deposit amount. After getting Nomination to the Fixed Deposits, Dl to D3 are trying to withdraw the amount as Nominees of Chinnapoovan. They are also threatening the plaintiff who is a helpless widow. Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for,

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3 have filed written statement contending that the suit A Schedule Property are the joint family properties. According to them, Items 1 to 2 were purchased from out of the joint family income. All three items of A Schedule Properties are Joint Hindu Family Properties. Chinnapoovan died on 13.9.1997. Even prior to his death, in sound disposing state of mind, Chinnapoovan had executed a Will dated 29.4.1996 (unregistered) bequeathing his properties to D1 to D3. D1 to D3 are the Testamentary Heirs and the plaintiff has no right or interest in the suit properties. Chinnapoovan deposited the amount in the Banks in Fixed Deposits which were not renewed for long time. At the time of renewal of the Fixed Deposits, Chinnapoovan nominated either of Dl to D3 as Nominees for the Deposits. When defendants 1 to 3 have taken Chinnapoovan to the Banks-Union Bank of India, State Bank of India, while he was in hale and healthy condition and in good health, nominated the defendants 1 to 3 as Nominees for the Fixed Deposits. In fact at the time of renewal of the deposits, the defendants 1 to 3 being nominated for the deposits, plaintiff also accompanied Chinnapoovan and the defendants. Thus the defendants were impleaded as Nominees for the Fixed Peposits to the knowledge of the plaintiff. While so, it is not open to the plaintiff to claim as if the defendants 1 to 3 were included as nominees without the knowledge of the plaintiff.