ASMATH KATHU Vs. LAL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focussed against the judgment and decree dated 2.5.2002 passed in O.S.No.140 of 1996 by the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram. For convenience sake the parties are referred to under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

(2.) THE portrayal and parodying of the case of the plaintiff could be set out quintessentially and precisely thus: (a) One Purankhan died issueless and intestate a year and a half, before the institution of the suit, whereas his wife pre-deceased him. Purankhan's legal heirs are his brothers, viz., the plaintiff and D3 herein. THE property described in the "A" schedule of the plaint was the absolute property of Purankhan. He had bank accounts as set out in the "B" schedule of the plaint. He had cash of Rs.5 lakhs. He lent money to various persons as found detailed in the "C" schedule of the plaint. (b) THE plaintiff and D3 are entitled to half share each in the suit properties after paying the dues towards Purankhan's funeral expenses, debts and legacies, if any. (c) D1 is the husband of D2, who is the daughter of late Nabikhan, who was one of the brothers of Purankhan. D1 and D2 had no right or title over Purankhan's properties and they could have no claim over it also in any capacity. However, they withdrew the money standing in the account of Purankhan from the Banks as set out in the "B" Schedule. (d) In the Panchayat held, D1 and D2 agreed to give half share in the immovable properties and not in the movable properties of deceased Purankhan. (e) Jewels weighing 150 sovereigns were pledged by Purankhan with D6 during his life time and in fact, he discharged the major portion of the debt. After the death of Purankhan, D1 and D2, got the 150 sovereigns of jewels from the Bank without producing any succession certificate or any other evidence to establish their right. D1 and D2 therefore are bound to return to the plaintiff and D3 the jewels as set out in the "D" schedule of the plaint. (f) THEre were exchange of notices and from that the plaintiff understood the contention of D1 and D2 as though a Hibba was effected by Purankhan in favour of D2 and subsequently, release deeds executed by the plaintiff dated 17.2.1995 and 4.5.1995 emerged. THE plaintiff was aged about 65 years and illiterate and taking undue advantage of his innocence, D1 fraudently obtained his thumb impressions in blank papers by representiung that the signature/thumb impressions have been obtained for the purpose of getting relief from the government relating to the death of his brother. Such release deeds are nonest in the eye of law. (g) THE contention of D1 and D2 that D2 was the foster daughter of Purankhan is nothing but an utter falsehood. Accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for the following main reliefs:"a) to ascertain the extent of the property of the deceased Purankhan and to ascertain and realise the out standings of the deceased Purankhanb) to administer the estate of the deceased Purankhan by providing for the funeral and other expenses.c) to allot half share in the remaining estate of the deceased on a fair and equitable division.d) to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.".

(3.) PRECISELY and briefly the contentions of D6-Uzhavarpani Kooturavu Sangam as stood exposited from its written statement would run thus:-Purankhan did not pledge 150 sovereigns of gold jewels with D6 during his life time. Only two bangles weighing 16 grams were pledged for a sum of Rs.4,500/- and Purankhan himself, during his life time, returned those jewels.Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the suit.