SUNDARIAMMAL Vs. AMUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, who are the defendants in the suit filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2003 made in A.S.No.44 of 2003 on the file of Principal District Court, Vellore District confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2003 made in O.S.No.165 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Ranipet, Vellore District.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the defendants in the suit referred as appellants and the plaintiff in the suit referred as respondent hereafter.

(3.) THE appellants who are the defendants in the suit filed written statement in which it is admitted that the suit properties were originally belonged to Srinivasan and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner. But the appellants denied the contention of the respondent that the respondent is daughter of Srinivasan through his first wife viz., Vasantha and she was brought up by her grandmother and she was given married to one Arumugam. It is also denied that the appellants and the respondent succeeded to the suit properties after the death of Srinivasan and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as joint owners. The suit properties are not properly described and the boundaries and measurements given are also not correct. According to the appellants, the deceased Srinivasan married one Vasantha, as his first wife and after marriage, the said Vasantha did not lived with Srinivasan for long period and left her husband and got divorce from Srinivasn as per caste customs. After the said divorce, the above said Vasantha married one R.Gopal Achari and the said Vasantha gave birth to the respondent and subsequently two other issues. Therefore, the respondent is daughter of Gopal Achari. The respondent did not lived with the said Srinivasan or with the appellants at any point of time. The respondent was also not brought up by her maternal grandmother/Sampoornammal and Sampoornammal did not performed the respondent's marriage. Only the said R.Gopal Achari performed the respondent's marriage. Therefore, the respondent is not the daughter of the deceased Srinivasan. The properties left by the said Srinivasan are succeeded by the appellants Court fees also not correctly paid by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to 1/5 share in the suit properties as prayed for in the plaint.