SELVARAJ Vs. MADHESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OF the six defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants.

(2.) THE plaintiff Madheswaran filed the suit for partition of his 8/21 shares in the suit properties and rendition of accounts, and that has been decreed. He filed the suit alleging as follows: His father was one varada Odayar. He married two wives Angammal and Sampoornammal. He died in the year 1959. Angammal died on 6. 4. 1972. Defendants 1 and 2 are respectively the son and daughter of Angammal. THE said Sampoornammal is the third defendant. Defendants 4 to 6 are her daughters. THE plaintiff and his mother-the third defendant are residing in one house that belonged to Varada Odayar. Varada odayar left the suit properties which were owned by him, and his properties were in the management of Angammal till her death. THE plaintiff as co-owner is entitled to 8/21 shares in the suit properties and the 1st defendant would be entitled to 8/21 shares and the deceased Angammal and 3rd defendant together would be entitled to 1/21 share and defendants 2 and 4 to6 are each entitled to 1/8 share. After the death of angammal the 1st defendant has taken over the management of the suit properties. THE plaintiffs attempt to get partition of his share of the suit properties failed and therefore he had to file the suit for partition and rendition of accounts.

(3.) IT is contended by Mr. V. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants 1 and 2 that, (i) the finding of the trial court that the third defendants Sampoornammal was legally wedded wife of varada Odayar is erroneous' (ii) its further finding that the marriage took place before the Madras Bigamy Prevention Act, 1949 is also erroneous'and (iii) the trial courts rejection of the case of the defendants 1 and 2 that they have prescribed title by adverse possession also is incorrect. These are the points that arise for consideration in the appeal.