CHINNA PILLAI Vs. SELLAMMAL DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL those second appeals arise out of the same suit viz. O.S.No.774 of 1979, on the file of District Munsif at Ariyalur. The relevant facts for the purpose of our case may be summarised thus:

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 have filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the properties. It is their case that long before Poomalai died, the plaintiff had deserted him and in fact she was living with one Govindasamy and in that connection a daughter was born to her by name Panchavarnam, her date of birth being 3.10.1947. It is further said that at the time when the plaintiff left the company of Poomalai, Ex.A-1, a document of maintenance arrangement was executed by Poomalai, gifting certain items to the plaintiff. That was the year 1946. It is also said that there are records to show that Panchavarnam is born to Govindasamy, the second husband of the plaintiff and since there was no husband and wife relationship between the plaintiff and Poomalai at the time of his death, she is not entitled to any share in his assets. In so far as the share of Saminatha is concerned, it was contended that his mother is unchaste and who left her husband and was leading an adulterous life, and she is not entitled to any share in the family assets. The claim through his son can also only be as a widow of late Poomalai, and therefore, the said claim as a sharer of the son also cannot be maintained. It was also contended by them that they have been dealing the property as absolute owners and alienees have come into possession. The suit has been filed about 25 years after Poomalai died and the claim is, therefore, barred by limitation.

(3.) THE substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in S.A.Nos.877 and 878 of 1983 which are common are as follows: