CHINNAMMAL Vs. KANNAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Chidambara Udayar of Pottireddipatti, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District, had three sons Rangasamy Udayar, Ganesan and Devaraju. By a deed dated 11-3-1959, a partition was effected among the father and sons. While the father was allotted the properties described in Schedule 'A' to the document, the sons were together allotted the properties described in Schedule 'B' to the document. Chidambara Udayar executed a registered settlement deed on 27-7-1962 in favour of his daughter-in-law Kannaki, wife of Rangasamy Udayar giving substantial properties out of those allotted to him in the partition, to be enjoyed by him during his lifetime without any alienation and after his lifetime to be enjoyed by her absolutely. The three brothers viz., Rangasamy, Ganesan and Devaraju divided their properties by a registered deed dated 20-10-1964. The properties described in Schedule A to that document were allotted to Rangasamy. It was provided in the document that in one of the sites allotted to Rangasamy, the mother of the parties by name Chinnammal should be permitted to reside during her lifetime. Chidambara Udayar died on 9-7-1966. Rangasamy Udayar died on 15-10-1972. Chinnammal issued a notice in August 1974 to Kannanaki and others claiming a share in the properties of her deceased son Rangasamy. Kannaki sent a reply on 31-8-1974 claiming that Rangasamy had bequeathed all his properties to her under a will. Thereafter, Chinnammal filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, on the file of the Sub Court, Salem in November, 1974 with a petition to file the same in forma pauperis.

(2.) The first defendant was Kannagi, the daughter-in-law. Defendants 2 and 3 were the partners of sago factory along with the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant was only a benamidar for her husband. Defendants 4 and 5 were purchasers of some of the suit properties from the first defendant. Defendants 6 and 7 were the surviving sons of the plaintiff and the brothers of the deceased Rangasamy. While Schedule A to the plaint comprises the properties allotted to Rangasamy in the partition, Schedule B comprised of the sago factory. Schedule A also comprised of the properties given to the first defendant by Chidambara Udayar under the settlement deed dated 27-7-1962 referred to earlier. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the Settlement deed was not valid in law as it was obtained by undue influence and coercion when the settler was insane. The plaintiff referred to the exchange of notices in August 1974 and pleaded that Rangasamy Udayar died intestate. The relevant portion of the plaint is found in paragraph IX, which reads thus : -

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement contesting the claim made by the plaintiff and denied the averments and allegations made in the plaint. She contended that she was not a benamidar for her husband in the sago factory and that she was a partner in her own right and on her own behalf as she had invested her own money in the business. She stated that the allegations made against Chidambara's sanity at the time of the settlement deed in 1962, were false and that the settlement deed was valid and fully acted upon. As regards the will of her husband, the plea in the written statement was in the following terms.