THIRUMATHI RAMAYAMMAL Vs. THIRUMATHI MATHUMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1, 3 and 4 in O. S. No. 72 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif, dindigul are the appellants. The first and second plaintiffs in the suit, claiming to be the third wife and daughter respectively of the second defendant, filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the same. They claimed title to the suit properties on the basis of a family arrangement said to have been entered into and evidenced by Ex. A. 1 dated 25-5 1964, between the second defendant, the then owner of the suit properties, the plaintiffs and the appellants. According to the plaintiffs the suit properties have been given to them absolutely under the family arrangement and that the appellants to whom other properties have been allotted under the said family arrangement have been wrongfully asserting title to the suit properties and interfering with their possession.

(2.) THE appellants resisted the suit contending that they were not willing parties to the said family arrangement, that their thumb impressions have been obtained in ex. A. 1 by deceit and that in any event Ex. A. 1 is not admissible in evidence for want of registration. They also denied the status of the first plaintiff as the third wife of the second defendant and the status of the second plaintiff as his legitimate daughter. The first defendant is the daughter of the second defendant through his first wife and the third defendant is his second wife and it is claimed that by a settlement deed Ex. B-1 dated 26-10-1966 the suit properties had been settled on them by the second defendant and that, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any title to the suit properties. The second defendant died pending the suit.

(3.) ON these rival contentions, the trial Court held that the marriage of the first plaintiff with the second defendant is void as the second wife was then alive and that therefore, the second plaintiff is not the legitimate daughter of the second defendant. The trial Court held that even then the family arrangement pleaded by the plaintiffs was valid, that in pursuance of the said arrangement the suit properties had been allotted to the second defendant and the plaintiffs and that on the death of the second defendant it was the plaintiffs who became entitled to the suit properties. It was also held that Ex. B-1 on which the appellants relied was not valid.