KALIAMMAL Vs. KRISHNAVENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of the courts below dismissing the indigent Suit filed for declaration, possesion and mesne profits claiming that the plaintiffs are the daughters of Thimmaryan @ Periannan and Chinnammal.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are as follows:-

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants denying the plaint allegations and by placing their version of defence that, the first defendant is a legally wedded wife of Ramasamy. Second and third defendants are his children. When Thimmarayan died, his son Ramasamy was minor. So, his mother Chinnammal took over the administration of the family properties. She was in possession and enjoyment of entire properties. As a widow of Thimmarayan, after 1956, her right got enlarged under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, to succeed along with her son Ramasamy. On the death of Ramasamy, Chinnammal became the full owner of the suit properties described as item I of the 'A' schedule property. The II Item of 'A' schedule property was purchased by Chinnammal in the year 1960. During her life time, Chinnammal executed a Will dated 21.11.1976, bequeathing the suit properties in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants appointing their mother, the first defendant as guardian. The defendants are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property as the legal heirs of Ramasamy and through the Will of Chinnammal. The alleged settlement deed of Ramasamy in favour of the plaintiffs is not a valid deed. The plaintiffs got married long ago and living separately. They have no right in the suit properties. They were not sharing the mahazool nor there was any mediation to handover the possession to the plaintiffs as alleged in the plaint.