JAYALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision petition against the judgment of the learned District Judge, South Arcot at Cuddalore, setting aside the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, directing the issue of a Succession Certificate. The disputes centre around a sum of Rs. 2900 which had accrued to the credit of Ramachandra Reddiar towards his provident fund. Ramachandra Reddiar was employed as a peon in the South Arcot Cooperative Central Bank, Cuddalore. The revision petitioner was married to him on 21st October 1959 and was living with him for a time. According to the respondent herein, she deserted him subsequently and married one Ramalinga Reddiar and is living with him since then as his wife. Ramachandra Reddiar had nominated the respondent, his sister, by his letter, dated 9th May 1971, and the nomination was accepted by the officials concerned, notwithstanding the fact that the revision petitioner had married him and could claim to be his wife. On the death of Ramachandra Reddiar, the revision petitioner applied under S. 372 of the Indian Succession Act for the issue of a succession certificate in her favour, empowering her to withdraw the provident fund amount standing to the credit of Ramachandra Reddiar, at the time of his death. This petition was resisted by the respondent, who is the sister of Ramachandra Reddiar, inter alia on the ground referred to above, viz., that the petitioner has married Ramalinga Reddiar after leaving Ramachandra Reddiar is adulterous.

(2.) The learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that Ramalinga Reddiar had married Jayalakshmi Ammal. He also disbelieved the contention of the respondent that the revision petitioner has been living in adultery with Ramalinga Reddiar. These findings of fact by the learned District Munsif were dissented from by the learned District Judge, who found that there was sufficient evidence to show "that the petitioner was not living with her husband during his lifetime and that she has been living with one Ramalinga Reddiar." He relied on the evidence of R.W.1, R.W.3 and R.W.4 to come to this conclusion.

(3.) The late Ramachandra Reddiar had executed a settlement deed (Ex. B.9) d. 9th May 1971, in favour of his nephews Rajaram Reddiar and Oomai Ramachandra Reddi. In this document, the deceased Ramachandra Reddiar had stated that he had no wife at that time. This would show that whether or not the revision petitioner married Ramalinga Reddiar validly, Ramachandra Reddiar no longer treated her as his wife when Ex.B9 came into existence. The vaccination register to prove that a child by name Murugadoss was born to Jayalakshmi and Ramalinga Reddiar has also been filed. The oral evidence of R.W.5 coupled with the recitals in Ex. B9 would suffice to prove the case of the respondent that the revision petitioner has been living in adultery with one Ramalinga Reddiar. An entry in Ex. B -8, a ledger maintained in Sri Lakshminarasimhaswami Devastanam, Tindivanam for the payment of a sum of Rs. 10 at the time of the marriage of Jayalakshmi with Ramalinga Reddiar as per the entry in Ex. B -7, the marriage register, further reinforces the case of the respondent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that during the lifetime of Ramachandra Reddiar, there could be no valid marriage between Ramalinga Reddiar and Jayalakshmi and that the marriage between them, even if true, is not valid. The question whether the marriage was valid or not does pot arise for the purpose of deciding the dispute in this case. There is no doubt about the fact that Jayalakshmi, the revision petitioner, was living in adultery with Ramalinga Reddiar. The learned District Judge was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the revision petitioner has been living in adultery with Ramalinga Reddiar. I am constrained to come to the conclusion that Ramachandra Reddiar chose to nominate his sister, the respondent herein, as the person entitled to receive the Provident fund after his lifetime, because of the adulterous conduct of the revision petitioner, whom he ceased to consider as his wife.