KUPPU ALIAS KUPPAMMAL Vs. KUPPUSWAMI MANDIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Kuppu alias Kuppammal is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit informa pauperis for partition.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is as follows: The plaintiff is the daughter -in -law of one Ramasami Mandiri. The plaintiffs husband Rajagopal Mandiri was the son of Ramasami Mandiri by his first wife. The 1st defendant is his son by his second wife. Ramasami Mandiri had an elder brother by name Beeki Mandir. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of Beeki Mandiri. Beeki Mandiri and Ramasami Mandiri were members of a joint family. Beeki Mandiri was the family manager. The B, C and D schedule properties were all joint family properties acquired with the income from ancestral nucleus and joint labour and joint earnings of the two brothers and were treated and dealt with as joint family properties. The plaintiff was married to Rajagopal about 20 years ago. Ramasami Mandiri died in or about 1945 as an undivided member. On his death, the plaintiffs husband and the first defendant became entitled to undivided one half share each in the share of Ramasami Mandiri. The family continued to be joint. The plaintiffs husband died undivided in 1950. The plaintiff continued to remain in the joint family and she was in joint possession of her husbands share of the family properties along with the other members of the family. She was residing with Beeki Mandiri who was paying her a portion of the income from the family properties. Beeki Mandiri died in May 1960. After his death, the second defendant is the manager of the family. He, acting in collusion with the first defendant, did not give portion of the income from the family properties to the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded partition. But the defendants refused to effect a partition. The plaintiff is residing with her parents after the death of Beeki Mandiri and the defendants 1 to 3 are in exclusive possession of the properties. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4 share in the family properties. She is entitled to absolute right over the l/4th share by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1956. The 1st defendant filed a suit O.S.No.59 of 1963 on the file of the trial court for partition claiming half share in the family properties without referring to the rights of the plaintiff. A final decree has been passed in that suit on 5 -3 -1975 under which the first defendant has been allotted the F schedule properties and he has taken possession of the same. The fourth defendant is impleaded on the contention - of the 1st defendant though she has no right in the F schedule properties. Since the 1st defendant has been allotted half share in all the family properties as per decree in O.S.59 of 1963, the plaintiff is entitled to claim a half share in the F schedule properties so alllotted as an alternate remedy.

(3.) On the other hand the case of the 1st defendant as contended in his written statement is as follows: The plaintiff is not the widow of Rajagopal and she is not entitled to any interest in the suit properties. Even before Ramasamis death in 1945, she abandoned her husband and ran away to Vellore for improper purposes. The family repudiated her and out of shame and disgust over her unbecoming conduct, her husband Rajagopal went and joined the military. He returned from military, shattered and ruined in health and died thereafter. The plaintiff never came to Mudinampet during his sickness or for his death or other ceremonies. She was not his widow at his death. Rajagopal died in 1946 and not in 1950. It is absolutely false to state that the plaintiff was in the joint family and in joint possession of Rajagopals interest in the family properties. She did not remain with Beeki Mandiri. Since 1945, the defendants have been in exclusive possession of the suit properties along with Beeki Mandiri and after 1960, the defendants alone are in exclusive possession. The plaintiff is not entitled to any share. The claim made under Act 30 of 1956 is unsustainable. The plaintiff had pursued a life of profligate prostitution even during her husbands lifetime whom she had abandoned and she is even now living with one Kannappa Mudali. Even if the plaintiff was the widow of Rajagopal, her rights,if any,have been extinguished and lost under sec.28 of the Indian Limitation Act. The plaintiff had never been in possession of the suit properties at any time for the past 19 years prior to the institution of the suit. The suit is misconceived and has to be dismissed.