INDIRANI Vs. VELLATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND defendant in O.S. 506 of 1979 Sub Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant. The plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 1 and 3 are the seven respondents herein. The suit was filed for partition of the suit properties and for allotment of plaintiffs 11/18th share and for rendition of accounts. In Che plaint, it is stated as hereunder: The suit properties belonged to one Palanisami Thevar, the husband of first defendant. He died in 1973 leaving behind his only son, Velusami Thevar, and defendants 1 and 3 as his heirs. Third defendant is a minor daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of Palanisami. Velusami was entitled to 4/6th share in the properties left by his father, and defendants 1 and 3 were entitled to one-sixth share. First plaintiff was married to Velusami in 1964, and minor plaintiffs 2 to 5 were bora to them, and he died on 27.1.1979, and hence, they are his legal representatives. The suit properties are in the joint possession of plaintiffs and first defendant. SECOND defendant is impleaded at the instance of first defendant as she claims to be married to Velusami which is false. First plaintiff was married to deceased Velusami on the 6th of Vaikasi 1964 at Palani under the Hindu rites in the presence of friends and relatives. First plaintiff belonged to Pillai caste and the marriage was a love marriage. On his death, plaintiffs demanded partition and separate possession, and when first defendant had not cared to send a reply, the suit had been file.

(2.) FIRST defendant claimed that first plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of Velusami, and the issues born to her were not born to him, and she is a woman of loose character, and when she was 16, she had eloped with one Kuppusami, and since her son had all vices, he had developed illicit intimacy with first plaintiff, and therefore, no valid marriage could have taken place at Palani in 1964 and that second defendant was the only person married to Velusami at Palani on 28.8.1968 under Hindu rites and in accordance with the custom of the community, and, therefore, the suit claim will have to fail. Items 1 to 8 in schedule I are the self-acquired properties of Palanisami, and the remaining items and a portion of item No.l, in schedule II were acquired by first defendant out of her own stridhana funds. Hence, the suit claim is false.

(3.) TRIAL Court held that the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of late Velusami, and that she had lived with him as husband and wife and that plaintiffs 2 to 5 were born to them. So far as the second defendants marriage with Velusami is concerned, it was held that it may be a true one, but it is not valid in law, because he had been already legally married to first plaintiff. In dealing with the items of properties and the rights of the respective parties, it was held that plaintiffs that plaintiffs 1 to 5 are entiled to ll/36th share in items l to 6 and 8 in plaint schedule 1 and a portion of item 1 in schedule 11 and that they are not entitled to any share in other items of properties. Plaintiffs are also entitled for rendition of account from the share alloted from 27.1.1979. Aggrieved with this finding, second defendant alone has preferred this appeal. A memorandum of cross-objections had been filed by respondents 1 to 5 in the appeal relating to disallowed items.