SHANMUGHAM Vs. INDRANI AMMAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants resisted the suit contending that their vendor Ethiraj got the suit property from his father Munuswami Naidu, that under Exhibit B -6 he had conveyed his interest in the suit property to them, and that ever since the date of Exhibit B -6 they are in possession of the properties.

(2.) The trial Court accepted the plaintiff's case that the suit properties originally belonged to Munuswami Naidu, that later the same has been bequeathed to Govindammal under the Will dated 20th December, 1935 and that therefore, the plaintiff has acquired valid title under the sale deed Exhibit A -1 executed by Govindammal in his favour. In that view, it decreed the plaintiff's -suit.

(3.) On appeal, the lower appellate Court however, took a different view. It also agreed with the trial Court that Muruswami Naidu had executed a will in favour of Govindammal on 20th December, 1935, but as the original of the will had not been produced into Court and the explanation for non -production of the original will given by the plaintiff and his vendor Govmdammal (P.W. 2) was far from satisfactory, and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to let in secondary evidence regarding the terms of the will. The lower appellate Court, therefore, felt that the terms of the will not having, been proved, the plaintiff has not proved his vendor's title to the suit property by virtue of the will said to have been executed by Munuswami Naidu on 20th December, 1935. Having held that the plaintiff has not established his title, to the suit property through Govindammal the lower appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.