SMT. INDIRANI AMMAL Vs. MUNUSWAMY PILLAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. A. 97 of 1983 arises from O.S. 200 of 1977, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kancheepuram a suit filed by the Appellant herein. In S.A. 98 of 1983 also the plaintiff is the appellant, and same arises from O.S. No. 94 of 1977, on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram. S.A. No. 752 of 1983 arises from O.S. 202/77, on the file to the District Munsif's Court, Kancheepuram. There also the appellant herein is the plaintiff. In all these appeals, one Indirani Ammal is the appellant. The suit;; were filed by her for recovery of property from the defendant/defendants, on the basis of title. The entire schedule property is having an area of 62 cents and the allegation is that the plaintiff purchased the same from one Eth irajulu son of Munnusami Naidu as per sale deed dated 19.8.1961. It is stated that the second defendant in all the suits by name Shanmugham purchased from one Govindamal on 4.9.1965 some property, on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by Munusami Naidu in favour of Govindammal. It is said that the said Shanmugham filed O.S. No. 180 of 1 966, on the file fo District Munsif's Court, Kancheepuram, in respect of a portion of a Schedule property which was in the possession of the plainitiff herein. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the will executed by Munuswami Naidu is genuine and, therefore, Govindamal was competent to execute sale deed in favour of the second defendant and allowed recovery of property. Against the said judgment, the present appellant filed A.S. 47 of 1969 on the file of the Sub Court, Kancheepuram. That Appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed.

(2.) The matter was taken before this Court in Second Appeal No. 1790 of 1971, and the decision rendered therein is reported in 1973 II MLJ 506 (Shanmugham Vs. Indirani Ammal). This Court held that even the original will had not been filed, and the will has not been proved in accordance with law. Therefore, the right of Govindmmal is not proved. In that view, the suit filed by the second defendant was dismissed.

(3.) I have already said that in that suit, only a portion of the property was scheduled, and long before the institution of that suit, second defendant has alienated portion of the same to the respective first defendant in the four suits mentioned above. He has also sold a portion of the property to the other defendants, namely, defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 94 of 1977, which relates to Second Appeal No. 98 of 1983.These alienees came into possession of the respective portions purchased by them and, therefore, all these suits were filed by Indirani Ammal claiming title to the entire A Scheduled property. She wanted a recovery of the property from the respective first defendant in the four connected suits and also from defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 94 of 1977.