ADHILAKSHMIAMMAL AND ANOTHER Vs. JAYALAKSHMIAMMAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants. First defendant is the wife and second defendant is her husband.

(2.) The first plaintiff Santhanayaki Ammal (since deceased) and Dhanapathi Ammal were sisters of one Raja Balasubramania Mudaliar. Second and third plaintiffs are the daughters of the said Dhanapathi - Ammal. Fourth plaintiff is the daughter and fifth plaintiff is the son of the deceased first plaintiff who have been impleaded as the Legal Representatives of the deceased first plaintiff. The suit property belonged to the said Raja Balasubramaniam Mudaliar. He married Neelambal in 1918. They had no issues. The plaintiffs' case is, even during the life-time of Neelambal, Raja Balasubramaniam Mudaliar developed illicit intimacy with one Lokanayaki, widow of Masilamani Mudaliar who was the paternal uncle's son of Raja Balasubramaniam Mudaliar. As a result of this illicit intimacy first defendant was born in 1944. One year after the birth of the first defendant Adhilakshmiammal the relationship of Raja Balasubramaniam and Lokanayaki became estranged and Lokanayaki left Madras and went to Irunpuliyur near Thambaram but the child was with Raja Balasubramaniam. He and his wife Neelambal brought up the child. Neelambal died on 16-3-1959. In 1961 Raja Balasubramaniam gave his daughter first defendant in marriage to the second defendant. For a year or so the two defendants were living in the second defendant's house, but thereafter they began to live with Raja Balasubramaniam. Since the defendants did not take care of Raja Balasubramaniam during his last days he came and lived with the second plaintiff. He died on 18-8-1969. Some time after, the first defendant issued a notice to the second plaintiff claiming herself to be the heir of Raja Bala subramaniam and demanding to deliver to her the cash balance of Raja Bala subramaniam. A reply was sent by refuting the claim. The plaintiffs are the heirs of Raja Balasubramaniam who died intestate and without any legal issue. The first plaintiff is entitled to half share and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 to the other half. The first defendant has no right in the property left by Raja Balasubramaniam since she is only an illegitimate child. Since the first defendant claims right in the property and as she is in possession of the suit house of Raja Balasubramaniam a suit had to be filed. (Here it may be mentioned that it is rather strange that the plaintiffs without a prayer for possession of the house from the defendants have prayed for only declaration of their title and partition of the properties among them).

(3.) In the written statement the defendants deny that the first defendant was an illegitimate child of Raja Balasubramaniam and they claim that she was born out of the wedlock of Raja Balasubramaniam and Lokanayaki and therefore she is a legitimate child and she is the heir of Raja Balasubramaniam. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs who are the remote heirs of Raja Balasubramaniam have no right in the property. It is further claimed that Raja Bala- subramaniam had executed a will in favour of the first defendant with respect to the suit property.