HEMAMALINI Vs. SWAMINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND plaintiff in O.S.No.289 of 1979, on the file of Sub Court, Mayuram, is the appellant.

(2.) ONE Mahadeva Sastrigal died on 11.8.1973 leaving Lakshmi Ammal as his widow, two sons by name Seshagiri and Swaminathan, who are respectively defendants 1 and 2 in the suit and two daughters Sankari and Rukmani; who are defendants 3 and 4 respectively. Long before the death of Mahadeva Sastrigal, he and defendants 1 and 2 had entered into a deed of partition, as evidenced by Ex.A-5 dated 15.7.1953. The plaint schedule properties are the properties retained by Mahadeva Sastrigal under the said deed.

(3.) BEFORE going further into the merits of the case, it may be noted that before the trial court, the children of defendants 3 and 4 were not parties, though they were beneficiaries under the Will alleged to have been executed by Mahadeva Sastri. Aggrieved by the judgment, an appeal was by the second defendant as A.S.No.150 of 1981. The lower was of the view that everything depends upon the validity of Ex.A-1 Will alleged to have been executed by Lakshmi Ammal in favour of second plaintiff. If that is found against, there is no purpose in proceeding with the appeal. Thereafter, the lower appellate court found that Ex.A-1 is not valid, and dismissed the suit. It did not enter a finding on the validity of Ex.B-1 or whether Lakshmi Ammal will be a legal heir. It is against the said judgment, second plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.