DAMAYANTHI KAILASAM Vs. D F PHILIPS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu in allowing the Interlocutory Applications filed by the defendants 1,2 and 4, under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to receive additional written statement, these CRPs have been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff.

(2.) FOR convenience, the pleadings in I. A. No:1805 of 2005 will be taken up and the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the said application. The suit has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff as against the respondents herein for partition of the suit properties and to allot 1/6th share to her. The defendants filed written statements. Pending the suit, the first defendant filed the impugned Interlocutory Application to receive additional written statement. In the said application, the first defendant contended that the plaintiff has changed her attitude after filing of her original written statement and as there is no hope or sign of her reforming herself, she had decided to file the additional written statement to correctly set out her legal rights against the plaintiff. According to the first defendant, the property at halls Road, Egmore was the joint property of the first defendant and her late husband having been jointly acquired by them with their common funds including the funds raised by the sale of jewels belonging to the first defendant. The joint and mutual Will dated 8. 5. 1989 executed by the first defendant and her late husband specifically recites that the the properties being self acquired properties of the first defendant and her late husband, the same having been acquired by them through their self earnings and amounts. The Will further declares that in the event of death of either one of them due to natural causes or otherwise, both movables and immovable properties of the deceased shall devolve on the survivor of us from the date of death of one of the deceased an the survivor shall have absolute right over such devolved properties inclusive of the rights of sale, conveyance and what not. Therefore the defendant submits that the plaintiff cannot pretend ignorance about this recitals and the sanctity of this solemn document cannot be attacked either by the plaintiff or by any other person. It is also admitted by the first defendant that steps were initially taken by her in O. P. No:485 of 1993 in the High Court for grant of Letters of Administration. But due to technical reasons, it was withdrawn and this does not meant that this defendant is not the joint owner of the property. Further, it is not permissible in law for the plaintiff to state that UTI units were purchased in the name of this defendant for the sake of convenience and the plaintiff cannot contest the fact that it is the sale proceeds of the Halls Road property which was utlised for the investment in the UTI and for the purchase of the Neelangarai Property. As joint owner she was already entitled to half share in them. As the survivor as per the terms of the said Will, she has become owner of the other half share. Thus she is the absolute and full owner of all the suit and other properties and therefore, the plaintiff cannot question the same. Even otherwise, the purchases made by her husband are in the name of his wife and for her benefits and therefore the daughter has no locus standi to question the same. The plea of benami transactions is barred under Sections 2 and 4 of the Benami Act, 1988. The plaintiff cannot claim any relief as a Beneficiary or as a Sharer. The first defendant is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the house. The claim as against Neelangarai house has become infructuous since the first defendant settled the same upon the 2nd and 4th defendants by a registered settlement deed. Regarding UTI Units, they stand in the name of the first defendant and they are her absolute properties.

(3.) THE first defendant stated that the plaintiff has been torturing her and she is filing the additional written statement to vindicate her stand and to uphold her rights and prays that the court has to take note of the subsequent events to mould the reliefs to render proper justice to the parties and she will be put to substantial loss if the additional written statement is not received by the court.