LAKSHMI AMMAL ALIAS PINNAYEL Vs. PAPPATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above second appeal has been filed by the defendants in O.S.No.529 of 1974 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Karur, who succeeded before the trial court but lost before the first appellate court. THE suit was for possession as also past and future profits and directing the defendants to deliver possession and for costs. THE case of the plaintiffs before the trial court was that the suit property belonged to one Venkatarama Reddiar ancestrally; that the said Venkatarama Reddiar married the first plaintiff according to the Hindu customs and rites; that there was no issue for them for pretty some time which was the cause for disruption of family harmony and that the same resulted in the execution of a maintenance release deed by the first plaintiff on 10.8.1943 in favour of her husband Venkatarama Reddiar marked as Ex.B-1. It was claimed that the said maintenance release deed was not acted upon and subsequently they lived together as husband and wife and in or about 1948 or 1949, the second plaintiff was born to them and later on the said Venkatarama Reddiar developed illegal intimacy with the first defendant and the second defendant was born to them. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that thereafter he drove the first plaintiff out of the house and did not provide maintenance at all and the defendants 3 and 4 are the minor daughters of the first defendants. THE said Venkatarama Reddiar admittedly died intestate on 9.1.1973 and in the light of the above stated facts, it was claimed that the plaintiffs are the only heirs of the deceased Venkatarama Reddiar who are entitled to the suit properties by succession and the defendants have no manner of right to succeed to late Venkatarama Reddiar. Since the defendants, according to the plaintiffs, have no manner of right to succeed to late Venkatarama Reddiar, but they are in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit properties, right from the death of Venkatarama Reddiar. THE plaintiffs sought to recover the suit properties and also for the relief of past and future mesne profits. Notices have also been exchanged between the parties prior to the filing of the suit.

(2.) THE defendants filed a written statement in which it was virtually admitted that the said Venkatarama Reddiar married the first plaintiff as also the circumstances which resulted in the execution of the maintenance release deed between the first plaintiff and late Venkatarama Reddiar. But at the same time, the defendants plea was that the claim of the plaintiffs that the maintenance release deed was not acted upon or given effect to is incorrect and since there was no issue for the parties to the original marriage for a pretty long time, the provision for maintenance came to be made to the first plaintiff and immediately thereafter, the first plaintiff was living separately and leading a life of her own and the second plaintiff could not be considered to have been born out of lawful wedlock THE defendant also contended that immediately after the release deed dated 10.8.1943, Venkatarama Reddiar married the first defendant according to the rites and customs of the community and defendants 2 to 4 arc born out of their lawful wedlock and the challenge made to the relationship of the defendants with the deceased Venkatarama Reddiar is false and incorrect. Reliance was also placed on the factum of partition between the late Venkatarama Reddiar and the second defendant treating the second defendant to be his son under a registered partition deed marked as Ex.B-2 and the subsequent actual physical possession and enjoyment of the properties by the respective sharers as per the partition deed. In (he said circumstances, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief. THE quantum of mesne profits claimed was also disputed by the defendants.

(3.) AGGRIEVED the plaintiffs pursued the matter on appeal before the Sub Court, Karur in A.S.No.101 of 1980. Learned Subordinate Judge, on a consideration of the very materials on record and re-appreciating the evidence as it appealed to him came to the conclusion that the marriage of the first defendant with the late Venkatarama Reddiar took place only after 1949 namely in 1952 and that being a bigamous marriage which is void in law the first defendant cannot claim the status of a legally wedded wife and the children born of such marriage cannot be the legitimate heirs of late Venkatarama Reddiar who can claim to succeed to the estate of late Venkatarama Reddiar. In view of the above, the judgment and decree of learned trial Judge came to be set aside by learned first appellate Judge by his judgment and decree dated 26.2.1982 and the suit came to be decreed as prayed for. AGGRIEVED, the defendants have filed the above second appeal.