LAKSHMI Vs. RENUKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second defendant in O.S. No. 966 of 1981, on the file of III Additional District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore is the appellant. Plaintiff herein filed the suit to declare her title to the suit property, for execution of a conveyance, conveying or transferring, as the case may be, the house described in Schedule A in favour of the plaintiff, and for directing payment of the share perquisites and belonging described in Schedule B by first defendant to plaintiff, and for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) The appellant's husband M.V. Nataraj Chettiar died on 30.7.1974. The suit house property described in Schedule A was allotted to Nataraj Chettiar under a Scheme of purchase on instalment basis by first defendant -Society. His membership number was 439. At the time of allotment, the cost of the house was fixed at Rs. 4, 23.63. The said amount was to be paid in monthly instalments spread over for a period of 35 years. Nataraj Chettiar had no issues and he took a special interest in the plaintiff and was bringing up her as a foster daughter from her infancy. It is the case of the plaintiff that from the 15th day of her birth, she was brought up by late Nataraj Chettiar. Second defendant was also very much fond of the plaintiff. It was Nataraj Chettiar and the second defendant was brought her up and educated her, and when she grow up, she lived with her parents since they were residing nearer to her school, and now she is employed. Thereafter also, she continued her visits to late Nataraj Chettiar and his wife, second defendant. While so, he executed a registered will on 22.4.1974 bequeathing the plaint property to her, reserving a right of enjoyment to the appellant during her lifetime. There is also a specific clause prohibiting the appellant from alienating the property, and in the case of any contravention, the document will be inoperative and ineffectual. According to plaintiff, the testator has stated in the will that in the event of his dying without paying the instalments in full to the first defendant -Society towards the purchase price of the suit house and without taking a sale deed in his name, then the plaintiff should pay the same to the first defendant and obtain a sale deed from the Society. If any dues were payable by the Society to the testator, that was also bequeathed to the plaintiff. It is said that till 1979, the appellant was living very cordially with the plaintiff. But, after the payment was made in full the second defendant was to get the sale deed in her name, and because of that, the relationship became strained. Due to misunderstanding, plaintiff had to send registered notice both to the first defendant and second defendant about her rights over the property and wanted the sale deed to be executed in her favour. Plaintiff further published a notice in local daily about her right over the property. The appellant sent a reply denying the entire story put forward by the plaintiff and said that even if there was such a will, it could have concocted or would have been brought about at the instance of the plaintiff and her relations, by defrauding the deceased. Therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs as stated above.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the first defendant, it was contended that on the death of her husband, second defendant applied for substitution of her name in the place of her husband, and accordingly her name was substituted and the house was allotted to her. After the transfer, the appellant was paying the dues regularly and she paid the entire instalments and wanted a conveyance in her favour. When she applied for conveyance, plaintiff came forward with a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased. The first defendant -Society further contended that it is an unnecessary party to the suit and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.