MANIMEGALAI Vs. SRIRAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed these Second Appeals against the Judgment and decree dated 28.04.1995 made in A.S. Nos. 154 of 1991 and 29 of 1992 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 02.07.1991 made in O.S. No. 648 of 1983 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Pondicherry. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is as follows:

(2.) The suit was resisted by the first defendant stating that the sale claimed by the plaintiff is one without any basis of title. It is a collusive document between the vendors and the plaintiff. It is false to state that the suit properties belonged to Pattu @ Pattammal and she enjoyed it during her life time. It originally belonged to one Varada Reddiar, S/o. Muthukrishna Reddiar. The suit item and other items which are forming part of one single block belonged to Varada Reddiar. He offered to sell all the four items of which the suit property is a part. The said offer was made to Rengasamy Gounder, the first defendant herein. They entered into an agreement to sell the totality of the property of 8 kanies 21 Kulies 7/16 for a total consideration of Rs. 33,500/-. Dl paid an advance of Rs. 8,500/-. In pursuance of the agreement Dl obtained the suit property and other properties and enjoying it. Pattu @ Pattammal became widow in 1944 without any issues and lived with Dl as his wife since then. At the time of the sale of the suit property, Pattu was living with Dl took the sale of the suit property in her name, even though the suit property including the other property remained with him as Pattu was only a name lender. The suit property and other properties were also mortgaged in favour of a third party by name Subramania Chettiar by Dl with his other wife Janaki Ammal and Pattu @ Pattammal and secured Rs. 18,000/-. The mortgage was also discharged by Dl. Dl held possession of the suit property by raising various crops The revenue records also stand in his name. The antecedent title deeds, original sale deeds, agreement to sell, tax receipts were also with Dl. The nature of relationship stated in the plaint as in the documents would indicate the impossibility of inheritance even as per law. Therefore, the suit sale deed dated 20.10.1983 is not capable of giving any title to the plaintiff. The vendors described in the sale deed are in no way related to the deceased Pattammal. The claim of trespass into the suit property by the defendants is false. As per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the first category of heirs would succeed to the properties of a female Hindu dying intestate, namely first upon the issues and husband and in the absence of any issue, the husband will take her property except the property inherited from her father or mother. The question of mesne profits does not arise as the possession held by the defendants is legal. The mode of valuation of the suit property is wrong and the proper Court fee has not been paid. Hence, the first defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant, Rangasamy, died and defendants 5 to 8 were brought on records as legal heirs of the deceased first defendant. In the written statement filed by D5 and adopted by D6 to D8, it is stated that there is no averment against them why they were brought on record. They are unnecessary parties to the suit. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.