K CHANDRABABU Vs. K MAITHILI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS are the appellants against the reversing decision.

(2.) THE plaintiff/respondent had instituted the suit for declaration of title, delivery of possession and for mesne profits. THE case of the plaintiff is as follows:-THE disputed property belongs to Kothandapani Naidu. Plaintiff is the natural daughter of one Chinnaponnu Ammal and Srinivasan. After the death of Srinivasan, the husband of Chinnaponnu Ammal, sometimes in 1953, Kothandapani was supporting Chinnaponnu Ammal. Kothandapani had no issues and he had affinity towards the plaintiff. In 1957, Kothandapani requested Chinnaponnu Ammal to give the plaintiff in adoption and accordingly during the month of 'Thai'in the year 1957, Kothandapani took the plaintiff as his adopted daughter as per Hindu Customary rites. Subsequently, Kothandapani also performed the marriage of the plaintiff with one Kasinathan. After such marriage, the plaintiff used to come down to Chidambaram Town to stay in the house of her adoptive father at times. Defendants 1 to 5 are the sons, Defendants 6 and 7 are the daughters and Defendant No.8 is the widow of one Krishnasamy, the elder brother of Kothandapani. THE natural mother of the plaintiff died on 18.5.1957 and the wife of Kothandapani, the adoptive mother of the plaintiff, died on 27.5.1979. Subsequently, Kothandapani died at the Pondicherry Hospital on 2.4.1980. On receiving such information, the plaintiff and her husband had came to Chidambaram. On 15.4.1980, the ceremony had taken place. Defendants 1 to 4 and Defendant No.8 had joined together and had conspired to grab the jewels left by Kothandapani and similar efforts were also made by their relatives. On 15.4.1980, in the evening, the Panchayatars gathered at the residence of one Dr.Venkataraman and such meeting continued till 2'0 clock in the night of 15.4.1980. At that time the plaintiff has stated that she alone was entitled to possess the property of Kothandapani. At about 1'0 clock in the night, the plaintiff was informed that about 20 sovereign of jewellery would be given to her and the plaintiff was requested to put her signature on a sheet of paper. THEre was electricity power failure and only candlelight was available. THE plaintiff was requested to put her signature on a document written on stamp papers. Since there was no other alternative, the plaintiff and her brother affixed their signatures on the paper in order to receive the jewellery. However, such document has not been read over to anybody and the contents of the said document were not known to the plaintiff. THE defendants had told at that time that the jewellery were not brought and the plaintiff was requested to receive the jewellery on 16.4.1980 in the morning from Dr. Venkataraman. However, the plaintiff had not received such jewellery. She returned to Chennai along with her husband. Subsequently, the plaintiff received a notice from the Office of the Sub Registrar, Chidambaram in July 1980 indicating that an enquiry would be held relating to release deed dated 15.4.1980, which had been filed by Krishnasami Naidu, the brother of Kothandapani, for compulsory registration and at that time only the plaintiff came to know that the document has been prepared as a release deed. Such document had been obtained in a fraudulent manner by fabricating false information and by undue influence and had been prepared with the help of Dr. Venkataraman. THE plaintiff also raised objection before the Sub Registrar and the matter was pending. THE defendants were enjoying the property in unlawful manner and had no right over it.

(3.) IN the appeal filed by the plaintiff against such decision, the learned single Judge reversed the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit. Learned single Judge found that adoption has been proved.