SAMI NAIDU Vs. PANDARIDAS REDDIAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The attaching decree holder as plaintiff in a claim suit having lost in both the Courts below has preferred this second appeal. For money due by one Janakalakshmi Ammal on a promissory note executed by her on 22nd September 1952 for a sum of Rs. 2500 he filed the suit O.S. 277 of 1955 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. He got the decree transferred to the District Munsif Court, Villupuram for execution. Meanwhile Janakalakshmi Ammal died and her husband Krishnadoss and cousin Janakiammal were brought on record as her legal representatives. When the suit properties were attached in execution of the decree by the transferee Court, a claim was put forward by the first respondent herein claiming title to the properties as purchaser from one Govinda Reddiar. This Govinda Reddiar claimed title to the properties as heir and legatee of his wife, Indrani, she being the daughter of Janakalakshmi Ammal, the executant of the promissory note on which the suit O.S. 277 of 1955 was filed. Indrani's title to the properties was based on a deed of settlement executed by the said Janakalakshmi Ammal on 14th October 1940, nearly 12 years prior to the promissory note. Indrani had bequeathed the properties to her husband, Govinda Reddiar, under a registered Will evidenced by Ex. B. 2 (registration copy). The husband Govinda Reddiar conveyed the properties in favour of the first defendant under a sale deed Ex. B.1 dated 16th August 1955 for a consideration of Rs. 1500. It may be pointed out that the first defendant's father Thulasi Reddiar had obtained sale of the properties from Janakalakshmi Ammal under Ex. A.3 dated 29th June 1953 and the first defendant obtained the sale deed from Govinda Reddiar, the husband of Indrani, subsequently, finding that there was dispute as to heirship of Indrani. The finding of the Courts below is that the first defendant has been in possession of the properties. The plaintiff's case was that Govinda Reddiar, the claimant's vendor, was not the husband of Indrani and could lay no claim to the suit properties, to effectively pass title to the first defendant. His case was that Janakalakshmi Ammal was the owner of the properties and on her death the properties passed into the possession of her husband Krishnadoss who had also been made a party defendant in O.S. 277 of 1955. For the plaintiff, reliance was placed on an order passed in a suit O.S. 187 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Villupuram, rejecting the claim of Govinda Reddiar to be brought on record as the legal representative of Indrani, the Court holding that Govinda Reddiar was not the husband of Indirani. This order was passed on 27th October 1952. A revision had been taken against the said order to this Court and on revision the matter was remanded for further enquiry. Pending the enquiry, Janakalakshmi Ammal herself died and her husband Krishnadoss who got himself impleaded as her legal representative did not press the matter further. Both the Courts below have found on ample and substantial evidence that Govinda Reddiar had been married to Indrani with all rites Govinda Reddiar has given evidence as D.W. 1 of his marriage to Indrani which was performed according to Sastraic rites. One other matter may be noticed in this connection. During the minority of Indrani, Janakiammal, her mother's cousin, had been appointed as her guardian under the Guardian and Wards Act, in O.P. 13 of 1943 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore. On the death of Indrani Govinda Reddiar as the heir of the deceased ward applied in the District Court, South Arcot, for direction to the Court guardian Janakiammal to deliver possession of all the properties of Indrani to him, and this application was ordered by the District Court.

(2.) The finding of the Courts below that a marriage with all the necessary ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage took place between Indrani and Govinda Reddiar, is based on relevant and substantial evidence and is not open to challenge in second appeal. The recitals in the Will of Indrani are confirmatory of the relationship between her and Govinda Reddiar.

(3.) An attempt was made in this Court to argue that Indrani could not have got title to the suit properties under the settlement deed Ex. B.7, as it was a term of the settlement that she should marry one Kuppuswami Reddiar. The language of the document gave room for a possible construction that Indrani should marry Kuppuswami Reddiar, that they together should take the properties and that if either of them failed to marry the other, the recalcitrant party would have no interest in the properties. But this was not the case with which the plaintiff came to Court. The plaintiff's case was built on the basis that on Indrani's death the properties passed on to her mother Janakalakshmi Ammal as heir and that Govinda Reddiar was not her husband. The contention now attempted will go against this case and in fact may defeat the plaintiff's claim. If the contention is accepted, it will be Kuppuswami Reddiar who will be the owner of the properties. However, it maybe stated that even if the document is open to such construction, there is evidence on record that it is Kuppuswami Reddiar who refused to marry Indrani. The trial Court in these circumstances rightly observed that as Kuppuswami Reddiar did not wed Indrani in pursuance of Ex. B.7, the latter became the absolute owner of the properties. The whole case of the plaintiff was built on Indrani being the absolute owner of the properties and she leaving on her death in 1952 her mother Janakalakshmi Ammal and her father Krishnadoss surviving.