SHOBANA Vs. SUNDARARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allegations in the plaint in brief as follows:- THE property originally belonged to one Chellammal daughter of one Marthaal. THE said Chellammal's father was brother of the plaintiff's grand mother. THE said Chellammal had no issues and she was the only daughter for her father. She died intestate as Hindu on 16.01.1984. She got a divorce decree from the Court. After divorce, she became a Christian and she subsequently professed Hinduism. She adopted the plaintiff while she was one and half years. She brought up the plaintiff and celebrated her marriage. Even during the life time of Chellammal properties were in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. THE fact of death of Chellammal was not intimated to her by the defendants and others, who are all avaricious to grab her properties. Since the plaintiff is entitled to inherit Chellammal, as her next heir, the suit has been laid for declaration that she is the adopted daughter of Chellammal for declaration of her title to the properties and for recovery of possession and also for permanent injunction.

(2.) THE averments found in the written statement of the third and the fourth defendants are as follows:- It is incorrect to state that the father of Chellammal and grandmother of the plaintiff were siblings. Chellammal died intestate. But she was born as Christian and died as such. She was not at all a Hindu. She had never adopted the plaintiff. THE plaintiff is not related to Chellammal and she did not live with her. THE marriage of plaintiff was celebrated by her mother Thangam in Parappuvilai Village in C.S.I. church. One Alexandar is the father of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had no connection with Chellammal, the death intimation was not sent to her. THE plaintiff was never in possession of the properties. She is not at all a heir to Chellammal. Hence, the suit has got to be dismissed with costs.

(3.) THIS Court while admitting the second appeal has formulated the following substantial question of law:-