SUJATHA Vs. VIJAY ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2005 in A.S.No.23 of 2001 on the file of the District Court, Tiruvannamalai, remanding the case to the Trial Court in O.S.No.2 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai.) The defendant is the appellant herein and the plaintiffs are the respondents. The Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2005 in A.S.No.23 of 2001 on the file of the District Court, Tiruvannamalai, remanding the matter to the trial Court in O.S.No.2 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS' case is briefly as follows: The suit property was originally belonged to A.R.Anantha Ramanarayanan. Venakatachala Reddiyar purchased the suit property with his funds in the name of his wife, Andal ammal. Andalammal had no separate income to purchase the suit property. Venkatachala Reddiar had four daughters, viz., Lalitha, Shantha, Sugantha and defendant, Sujatha. Venkatachala Reddiyar along with his wife Andalammal had executed a registered Will on 16.07.1986 and the said Will was the last Will of Venkatachala Reddiar. Under the said Will, Sugantha was given life interest in the suit property. After her life time, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Venkatachala Reddiar died on 05.01.1993 and Andalammal died on 13.11.1996. The defendant has claimed that Andalammal said to have been executed a Will in her favour, is unsustainable and therefore, the plaintiffs have sent a legal notice to the defendant on 04.09.1997. The defendant has sent a reply to the legal notice on 24.01.1997. Andalammal had no absolute right over the suit property and she had no right to cancel the Will executed by herself and Venkatachala Reddiar. The claim of the defendant is illegal. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession, for mesne profits and for accounting of the income from the date of suit till possession is given and for costs.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court, the first plaintiff examined himself as PW.1. One Durairaj was examined as PW.2 and one Subba Reddiar was examined as PW.3. Exs.P1 to P4 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant examined herself as DW.1 and one Vetrivel was examined as DW.2. Exs.B1 to B9 were marked on behalf of the defendant.