V M RAMAKRISHNA MUDALIAR Vs. NAGAMMAL ALIAS NAGABUSHANAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO plaintiffs have jointly filed this suit for declaring that the plaintiffs alone are the sole and absolute owners of the plaint A schedule Properties, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, servants and men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the A Schedule Property either by preventing the plaintiffs from collecting the rents from the tenants in the A schedule Property or in any other manner whatsoever and for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE plaint A Schedule Property is a land measuring 85 x 19 sq. ft. with buildings thereon. THE same was acquired on 19. 11. 1948 by late saraswathi Ammal, wife of the first plaintiff. It is alleged in the plaint that the said acquisition was really by the funds supplied by the first plaintiff (her husband ). Ex. P-7 is the registration copy of the sale deed. THE first plaintiff and deceased Saraswathi Ammal had no issues. It is averred that the second plaintiff was adopted by them in the year 1957. It is further averred in the plaint that there was actual giving and taking, from the second plaintiff's natural parents, and ever since the date of adoption, the second plaintiff brought up by the first plaintiff and his deceased wife, and she was also given in marriage by them, in March, 1981. For the purpose of marriage, the defendant, who is the sister of Saraswathi Ammal was also invited. But, within a few days of the marriage, i. e. , on 12. 4. 1981, Saraswathi Ammal died of heart attack. It is alleged that immediately thereafter the defendant put forward a claim over the assets of Saraswathi Ammal as if she is the sole heir of the deceased. It is further averred that when claims and counter claims were made, a Panchayat was convened, and there was a settlement by which 14 sovereigns, 1 gram of gold were given to the defendant so that she may not claim any further right in the property. But, quite against the terms of the Panchayat, the defendant is now interfering in the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the properties, and it is said that their rights to collect rents are being interfered with. It is said that the defendant was residing originally with her parents, and after their death, she lived with her brother, one Sambandam, and since her behaviour was not proper, she was sent out of the house by her brother. Naturally, being the elder sister, Saraswathi Ammal gave protection to the defendant. THE defendant developed illicit intimacy with one K. Ramachandran and lived with him in Kodambakkam, and through him he ha:; three daughters. Ramachandran became a drunkard and he was sent out of the house by the defendant with the help of one J. Stalin Mani, a powerful man in A. D. M. K. Party. He began to look after the defendant, and he also performed the marriage of the defendant's daughter Selvil. Through the political influence of Stalin mani, the defendant is putting forward false claim over the suit property, which belonged to Saraswathi Ammal. Complaint to police was of no avail, and therefore, the suit has been filed.

(3.) ISSUE No. 1: This issue relates to the question whether the deceased Saraswathi Ammal was a Hindu or a Muslim at the time of her death. This is a material issue in this case, because, the law of succession depends upon the religion which the deceased was professing at the time of her death.