A SATHAR Vs. KUMARASWAMY MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate judge at Kancheepuram, dated 6. 4. 1992, in A. S. No. 22 of 1990.

(2.) THIS second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram, dated 6. 4. 1992, made in A. S. No. 22 of 1990.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case, as stated by the plaintiff in the said suit, are as follows: THE plaintiff is having two sons and daughters and the eldest son was one Gunasekaran. THE said Gunasekaran got himself separated from the family of the plaintiff and he was living separately for more than nine years. He has been doing his weaving operations and looking after his own affairs and he is running a separate family. Gunasekaran had died suddenly, on 20. 5. 1985, leaving behind his widow. THEre has been no joint family between the plaintiff and the said Gunasekaran and there was no family estate or any nucleus. Gunasekaran had not left any estate, when he died. It has been further stated by the plaintiff that the said gunasekaran was conducting chit transactions in the village by collecting subscriptions and conducting auction. THE plaintiff has not been a party to any of the chit transactions. THE defendant in the suit is said to have been a subscriber in the said chit run by Gunasekaran. While so, the defendant had given a police complaint against the plaintiff and the plaintiff had been brought before the Inspector of Police, Uthiramerur and by using threat and force the defendant had collected a sum of Rs. 6,300/- from the plaintiff, on 7. 7. 1985, alleged to be an amount due to the defendant from Gunasekaran. Fearing for his life, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 6,300/- to the defendant, even though the plaintiff did not owe any money to the defendant. THE plaintiff is not even a class I legal heir of the deceased Gunasekaran nor had he derived any estate from the said Gunasekaran. THE plaintiff had issued a notice to the defendant, on 9. 7. 1985, questioning the illegal and high handed act of the defendant. THE defendant had sent a reply, on 19. 7. 1985, alleging that it was only the plaintiff, who was carrying on the chit transactions, contrary to the statement made and signed by the defendant, on 7. 7. 1985. THE plaintiff had issued a rejoinder, on 5. 8. 1985, denying the allegations.