ETHIRAJAMMAL Vs. G. LAKSHMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O.S. No. 25 of 1970 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, is the appellant. The suit was filed by one Lakshi Devi as plaintiff impleading the first defendant, her mother and defendants 2 and 3, her brothers. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3, are the issues of one Narayanasami Naidu, who died intestate on 1st November, 1966. He left behind certain properties. According to the plaintiff, Narayanasami had owned ancestral properties and he built up a, business as a military contractor out of his own self -acquisitions. He is said to have acquired the properties described in schedules A, B and C to the plaint out of the income from those business. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed one fourth share in the properties. The defendants filed a common written statement in which they contended that the suit properties were not the self acquired properties of Narayanasami Naidu and that they were the properties of a joint family consisting of Narayanasami and his issues. They denied the plaintiff's claim for one -fourth share in the said properties. According to them Narayanasami had only one -third share in the properties and the plaintiff would be entitled to one -fourth share in that one -third share.

(2.) When the suit came up for trial the plaintiff and the third defendant entered into a settlement, with the other parties to the litigation, signing the compromise, with the result that the plaintiff and the third defendant got one -fourth share each in the properties. This compromise was entered into on 18th January 1972. The consequence is that one half of the properties covered by the suit has already gone to the plaintiff and the third defendant. At that stage the first defendant filed an additional written statement contrary to her earlier stand contending that the properties left by Narayanasami Naidu were the self -acquired properties and that he was entitled to one -fourth share therein. This claim was opposed by the second defendant, his contention being that the properties were only joint family properties.

(3.) The court below came to the conclusion that the properties are the joint family properties of Narayanasami and others and that the first defendant is entitled to only 1/12th share in all the properties and not one fourth share as she claimed. It is this decision which is now the subject matter of the appeal at the instance of the first defendant.