MUTHUSELVI Vs. SIVAGURUNATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of the Courts below in A.S. No. 21 of 1989 of Sub Court, Pattukottai (dated 30.12.1989) and O.S. No. 169 of 1981 of District Munsif Court, Mannargudi (dated 04.01.1988).

(2.) The Suit Properties relate to extensive extent of 29.44 Acres comprised in 20 Items - A 'Schedule' - Solaikulam Village, and 'B' Schedule - Two Houses in Solaikulam Village. The Suit Properties originally belonged to Ganesa Vandaiyar. Ganesa Vandaiyar went to Malaysia and earned huge money out of his business and later returned to India. From out of his money, Ganesa Vandaiyar purchased extensive properties - Suit Properties in Solaikulam Village. Thus Suit Properties belonged to Ganesa Vandaiyar absolutely.

(3.) Case of the plaintiff is that she was affectionately brought up by Ganesa Vandaiyar from her early childhood and she was treated as his own daughter. Plaintiff was admitted in School in Mangudi Village and later, she was admitted in R.C. School at Pattukottai for further studies. Ganesa Vandaiyar was showering love and affection upon the plaintiff. In a sound disposing state of mind, Ganesa Vandaiyar had voluntarily executed his Last Will on 19.04.1975, under which he has bequeathed all his properties in favour of the plaintiff. The Will was duly attested and voluntarily deposited with the District Registrar, Nagapattinam in a sealed cover. Ganesa Vandaiyar died on 11.01.1978. After the death of Ganesa Vandaiyar, plaintiff's next friend - her father reported the death of Ganesa Vandaiyar to the Registrar. On payment of proper fee and production of death certificate, the sealed cover was opened. As per the Will, plaintiff's father - her next friend was put in management of the properties without the power of alienation. Defendants 1 to 3, who are not the residents of the suit village, at the instance of D4 have jointly conspired together and attempting to interfere with the rights of the plaintiff in enjoyment of the suit properties. On 27.01.1978, the defendants attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit properties. Hence, the Suit for declaring the plaintiff's title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.