SARANGAPANI Vs. VARADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the light of the arguments advanced, the short question mainly involved in this First Appeal by defendants 1 to 9, against the preliminary decree for partition of 4/14th share of the plaintiffs respondents 1 to 4 herern, granted in O.S. No. 26 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram, is whether one Kiliyambal ammal alias Kamalammal, who died in 1972, was the wife of Venugopal Pillai, who died in 1979 and whether the said respondents 1 to 4 herein are the legitimate children of the said Venugopal Pillai and Kiliyambalammal. Admittedly the tenth defendant, who died pending suit was the wife of the said Venugopal Pillai and the appellants are the children of the said Venugopal Pillai through her. The trial Court, accepting the plea of the plaintiffs and negativing the plea of the defendants 1 to 10 granted the preliminary decree prayed for in respect of suit 'A' schedule properties (lands and houses), items 1 to 3 of suit 'E' schedule properties (outstandings) and item 8 of 'C' schedule (Utensils) on the footing that the said Kiliyambal ammal was one of the wives of Venugopal Pillai and the plaintiffs were their children. After analysing the entire evidence, the Court below came to the abovesaid conclusion, pursuant to S. 114 of the Evidence Act, since it found that Venugopal Pillai and Kiliyambal ammal were living together for a long time as husband and wife.

(2.) In view of the abovesaid short question involved, there may not be any necessity for setting out the allegations in the plaint and the written statement separately. No doubt, there was also one other question in the suit as to whether the suit properties were separate properties of Venugopal Pillai as pleaded by the plaintiffs or the joint family properties of Venugopal Pillai's family as pleaded by the defendants. The Court below held that the properties were separate properties of Venu gopal Pillai. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant initially sought to make some faint arguments to contend that the properties were joint family properties, but finally he did not press the said argument any further. So, in this appeal we proceed as if the suit properties were only self-acquired properties. There is also no scope for holding otherwise. There is also no scope for the other faint argument made by the learned counsel for the appellant that if the suit properties are, joint family properties, the suit is barred by limitation. This question also will not wise because, as already mentioned, the properties are taken only as self-acquired properties. Defendants 11 and 12 are only lessees of some of the properties and they are respondents 6 and 7 herein.

(3.) Now, while there is no plea regarding the date of the abovesaid marriage between Venugopal Pillai and Kiliyambal ammal, the trial Court came to the abovesaid conclusion that Venugopal Pillai and Kiliyambal ammal were, for a long time, living together as husband and wife, relying inter alia on the following documents: