POONGAVANAM ANIMAL Vs. APPASWAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS in O. S. No. 486 of 1979 on the file of District munsif, Gingee, are the appellants in the above appeal. They filed the said suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs as found in the plaint is briefly mentioned hereunder: THE second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff. THE first plaintiff's husband is one Govindaraja Rounder. He died in or about 1961. THE second plaintiff is the only issue of the said Govindaraja Rounder and the first plaintiff. THE defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. THEy are sons of one Dhanapal gounder. THE third defendant is the son of the second defendant. THE fourth defendant is the wife of one Jagadesa Rounder, who is another brother of defendants 1 and 2. Jagadeesa Rounder died about 5 years ago. THE suit properties originally belonged to Govindaraja Rounder, husband of first plaintiff. THE first item of the suit property originally belonged to Murugesa rounder and from him on 6. 4. 1944 Govindaraja Rounder purchased for valuable consideration. THE suit 2nd item was the ancestral property of Govindaraja rounder. During the life time of Govindaraja Rounder, he was in enjoyment of both the items of the suit properties. After his death, the plaintiffs are in enjoyment. THErefore, the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit property, and they alone are in enjoyment. Whileso, due to instigation by some enemies of the plaintiffs, from 19. 7. 1979 onwards the defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiffs and they are trying to dispute their possession which necessitated the plaintiffs to file the above suit.

(3.) MR. P. Gopalan, learned counsel for the appellants in the light of the substantial question of law framed earlier submitted that (1)the finding of the lower appellate court with regard to item 2 that the said properties have been given as stridhana properties to Ayyammal is erroneous in the light of the clinching evidence available on recordand that (2) the finding of the lower appellate court that suit item 1 was purchased in the name of Govindaraja Kounder as benami by Dhanapal Kounder is also erroneous and the defendants failed to establish or prove all the ingredients that the said transaction was benami. With these submissions, be prays for interference in this appeal. On the other hand, MR. O. V. Balaswami, learned counsel for the respondents, after taking me through the judgment of the lower appellate court, submitted that since the lower appellate court considered all the above two aspects and non-suited the plaintiffs, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the said finding, which is based on acceptable evidence, hence prays for dismissal of the appeal. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.