JAYARAM NAIDU Vs. VASANTHI KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the first defendant in the suit, who lost before both the Courts below. The suit was laid for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits on the premise that, the plaintiff's mother and the first defendant are daughter and son of Gopal Naidu. On the eve of the marriage of the plaintiff with the first defendant, the suit properties were settled in favour of the plaintiff on 24.06.1970 by Gopal Naidu as prenuptial settlement. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnised on 15.07.1970. After few years of marriage, misunderstanding surfaced between the plaintiff and the first defendant resulting in their separation. The first defendant continued to manage the suit properties and her status as wife of the first defendant never ceased though a document purported to be deed of revocation of settlement deed was obtained from her by fraudulent means and the same does not bind her. Other defendants are persons claiming themselves as purchasers or intending purchasers of the suit properties from the first defendant. Therefore, they are arrayed as defendants.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit on the premise that the settlement deed executed by Gopal Naidu on 14.06.1970 is not a valid settlement. The properties are the ancestral properties of Gopal Naidu. Even if the settlement is valid, the bequest under the settlement was jointly for the plaintiff, first defendant and their children. The plaintiff never lived with the first defendant and the children born to the plaintiff was not through the first defendant. They were born for one Veeraiyan, with whom the plaintiff had illegal intimacy. The settlement deed was never accepted or acted upon. In the panchayat held at the village, the plaintiff released her rights under the settlement deed and also a deed of divorce was executed on 24.08.1976. Since then the first defendant enjoying the suit properties absolutely and had alienated several of the suit items to third parties and also had entered into agreements for sale with few others, who are arrayed as defendants. The alleged marriage with the plaintiff itself is not valid, since both of them fall within the prohibited relationship of consanguinity.

(3.) The trial Court held in favour of the plaintiff and allowed the suit and the same was confirmed by the first appellate Court in the appeal filed by the first defendant. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the second appeal is preferred by the first defendant.