VISALAKSHI AMMAL Vs. PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second defendant in O. S. No. 176 of 1980, District Munsifs Court, valangiman at Kumbakonam, is the appellant in this second appeal. That suit was instituted by the first respondent herein against the second respondent and the appellant praying for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties and for recovery of mesne profits till the date of delivery of possession.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the first respondent is as follows: The suit properties originally belonged to one Bagirathiammal. She had a younger sister of the name of Parvathathiammal, who was married to one vaidyanatha Sastrigal. Par-vathathammal and Vaidyanatha Sastrigal had three sons, viz. , Ramachandran, Viswanathan (the husband of the first respondent) and san-thanaraman (the second respondent) and two daughters, viz. , the appellant herein and one Kamalathammal, Bagirathiammal executed a document on 25. 1. 1937. Thereunder, she directed that her sister Parvathathammal should enjoy'a' schedule properties for her lifetime and after her lifetime, her sons ramachandran,'viswanathan and Santhanaraman were directed to take the properties. Under the same document, Bagirathiammal had provided that kamalathammal, one of the daughters of Parvathathammal and Vaidyanatha sastrigal, should enjoy'b'schedule properties for her lifetime and thereafter, her issues were to take that property. It was also further provided that in the event of Kamalathammal dying without issues the property should devolve upon the sons of Parvathathammal. The document further provided that bagirathiammal. had the right to enjoy the income from the properties for her lifetime and thereafter, the income must be enjoyed by Parvathathammal and kamalathammal respectively for their lifetime and it was only after their lifetime, the properties were to be taken by the sons of Parvathathammal and the children of Kamalathammal, in case she had issues. According to the case of the first respondent, the document came into operation immediately and was also acted upon, though Bagirathiammal had made a provision for enjoyment of the income from the properties during her lifetime. The further case of the first respondent was that after the lifetime of Parvathathammal,'a'schedule properties vested in the sons of Parvathathammal, viz. . the husband of the first respondent and the second respondent herein, as the other son ramachandran had predeceased Parvathathammal. Kamalathammal had died issueless and under the terms of the document dated 25. 11. 1937, according to the case of the first respondent, her husband and the second respondent became entitled to a half share in'a'and'b'schedule properties and that on the death of the husband on 4. 5. 1958, she became entitled to a half share in'a'and'b' schedule properties. It was on the aforesaid basis that the first respondent claimed that she is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the suit set out earlier.