SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL AND ANR. Vs. MINOR S. RAMESHAM (RAMESHAN) ADOPTED S/O. ALWAR ALIAS RUKMANI AMMAL AND SRINIVASA IYENGER THROUGH NEXT FRIEND AND PROPERTY GUARDIAN C.K.S. RANGANATHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3 against the judgment of the Additional District Judge of Madurai in A.S. No. 390 of 1972, wherein he affirmed the judgment of the trial Court in all respects except as regards the declaration of title and delivery of possession of item No. 24 of the suit properties. The plaintiff has filed a memorandum of cross objections to get relief in respect of item No. 24 also.

(2.) THE genesis of this unfortunate litigation between close relations was the posthumous adoption of the plaintiff as the son of the Srinivasa Iyengar who died on 6th September, 1961. Srinivasa Iyengar had no surviving male issue and had only three daughters of whom, the third respondent was the second, the other two being the appellants herein. It would appear that Srinivasa Iyengar was desirous of adopting the plaintiff even during his lifetime, but the parents of the plaintiff were initially reluctant to give the boy in adoption, for at that time, they had no other male issue besides the plaintiff. However, they were blessed with a second boy on 9th December, 1960 and thereafter they were willing to give the plaintiff in adoption, but due to the intervening illness of Srinivasa Iyengar, the ceremony of adoption was postponed and eventually remained unaccomplished due to the death of Srinivasa Iyengar. It was thereafter i.e., on the thirteenth day of the funeral ceremony of Srinivasa lyengar, when Subhasweekarnam was performed, Srinivasa Iyengar's wife who was the first defendant in the suit and who died during the pendency of the suit, in deference to the wishes of her husband, took the plaintiff in adoption on 18th September, 1961. The adoption was done in accordance with Sastraic rites and rituals and, in addition a registered deed of adoption, Exhibit B -1 was also brought forth. The adoption ceremony was followed by a family arrangement which resulted in certain properties of Srinivasa Iyengar being allotted to the plaintiff the allotment however, being burdened with the obligation that the plaintiff should discharge certain debts, secured and unsecured, incurred by Srinivasa Iyengar. The remaining properties of Srinivasa lyengar as Well as the properties belonging to his wife were divided equally among his three daughters, but during the lifetime of Srinivasa Iyengar's wife, she was permitted to enjoy the income from those properties. Like the adoption itself, the family arrangement was also reduced to writing and a registered instrument, Exhibit B -2, was also brought into existence on 18th September, 1961.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff was that he had been validly adopted as the son of Srinivasa Iyengar that in pursuance of the adoption he was allotted the Schedule I properties at the family arrangement which followed the adoption and that the attempt of defendants 1 to 3 to nullify the settled state of affairs was morally and legally untenable. To the suit were impleaded, as pro forma parties, defendants 4 and 5 the fourth defendant being a lessee in whose favour the contesting defendants had created a lease and the fifth defendant being the mother of the plaintiff himself.