LAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Panju Sastrigal of Pavattakudi village, Nannilam taluk, had two sons by name Ramaswami and Sambamoorthy, the first plaintiff herein, Sambamoorthy was adopted by one Ananthanarayana Iyer in or about the year 1890. Subsequent to the adoption, Sambamoorthy was married to one Ponnammal. Sambamoorthy had a son Halasyam and daughter Laxmi, the second plaintiff in the suit. Halasyam died on 3-7-1961 and the first defendant is his widow. Defendants 2 to 5 in the suit are the tenants in possession of the suit properties. Pending the suit the first plaintiff Sambamoorthy died on 13-7-1962 and his daughter, the second plaintiff was brought on record as his legal representative.

(2.) THE plaint A schedule properties are pannai lands of an extent of 5 acres 24-1/3 cents. Schedules B to B-3 are lands under tenancy with defendants 2 to 5 and measure an extent of 7 acres 58-2/3 cents. The B schedule are two houses in pavattakudi village and the C schedule relates to moveables and cattle. The A schedule pannai lands were in possession and cultivation of the first plaintiff's son halasyam till his death on 3-7-1961, and thereafter continued to be in possession of the first defendant. The D schedule houses are also in possession of the first defendant. After the adoption sometime between 1896 and 1902 Sambamoorthy left the village for Madras. He was doing sweetmeat sales business originally as an assistant, then as a partner with one Subramania Iyer and later he purchased the partnership business itself and became its sole proprietor. Out of the earnings from this business the first plaintiff purchased the suit properties and a number of other items of properties; some items had been disposed of by him and an extent of 4 acres 28 cents of nanja land apart from the suit properties were also stated to be in the possession of the first plaintiff through his tenants. He had also purchased a house in Mayavaram which was in his occupation till his death. After his death the second plaintiff got into possession of these 4 acres 28 cents and the house in Mayavaram.

(3.) IT is the case of Sambamoorthy that the suit properties and others are his self-acquired properties, that he did not get any immovable properties or cash or any other property either from his natural father or his adoptive father or from anybody else, that he saved substantially when he was assisting in various sweetmeat stalls and that with that money he became a partner with Subramania iyer. With the earnings from that business he was able to purchase the other partner's share and became the sole proprietor of the business during the period between 1910 and 1925 when the plaintiff's son Halasyam was just a minor he having been born only in 1910. By his last will and testament dated 27-8-1961, sambamoorthy had bequathed all his properties to his daughter, the second plaintiff after the death of his son Halasyam. On these allegations he had filed the suit for possession of the suit immovable and movable properties and for mesne profits.