MUTHUKUMARAN Vs. NAGANATHA EASWARA BHOOPATHY ALIAS NAGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ramanathapuram, at Madurai, in A.S. No. 46 of 1984 dated 27.9.1984, reversing fee judgment of the learned District Munsif, Madurai in O.S. No. 132 of 1980 dated 25.11.1983. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

(2.) THE appellant herein filed the suit for declaration of title to the suit property and for consequential injunction directing the defendants to vacate and hand over the possession 6f the ground portion of the property to him. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to his mother Sankarammal having inherited the same from her father Singamuthu Pillai. THE plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2, Gnana-varadhan, Natarajan, Sankaran and Raja-rajeswari are the sons and daughter of Sankarammal and her husband Sundaraja Pillai. By a registered settlement deed dated 31.7.1968, Sankarammal divided all her properties including the suit property on her issues and each were entitled to a specific portion of the said properties. According to the plaintiff, as far as the suit property was concerned, northern portion was allotted to him, while the southern portion was allotted to Natarajan. THE adjacent property on the south was allotted to Sankaran and as far as the first defendant, Gnanavaradhan, Rajeswari are concerned, they were given other properties and thus each of them was in possession of their respective properties in their own right. THE first defendant was in management of the property before the settlement and hence, tax receipts were in his name, but otherwise he had no independent rights over the properties. After the execution of the settlement, the plaintiff and other sharers in the properties have been paying taxes for their portions and had also taken steps before the Municipal Authorities for transfer of the name in the Municipal Register. THEy have also been letting out their portions on lease to third parties. Natarajan, the other sharer of the suit property died in the year 1970 issueless and hence the property in his occupation reverted back to their mother Sankarammal. Sankarammal by virtue of a settlement deed dated 29.9.1979 conveyed the said share also in favour of the plaintiff and thus the plaintiff had become the owner of the entire suit property. THE plaintiff would further contend that the first respondent sold the property given to him and went away to Paramakudi, to live there. But, as a result of certain misunderstandings in the family, he had joined hands with the second defendant, and attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession of the property and hence a legal notice was sent to him for which a reply was sent containing false and frivolous claim to the effect that he was adopted by Singamuthu Pillai and his wife Silambayee. According to the plaintiff there was no such adoption as alleged by the first respondent and the first defendant himself had acknowledged the rights of Sankarammal and therefore, estopped from disputing Sankarammal's rights. THE claim by the first defendant, that their own father and mother have been witnesses to two documents substantiating the status of the first defendant as the adopted son of Singamuthu Pillai, was also denied. THE plaintiff would further claim that he had perfected title to the suit properties by adverse possession also. According to him, the ground floor portion of the suit property was forcibly occupied by the first defendant after evicting the tenant who was in possession of the said premises. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE only substantial legal basis on which the validity of adoption was attacked is that Hindu Law did not recognise the adoption of a daughter's son and that therefore, the adoption even if it is true, should be declared as null and void and nonest in the eye of law. Mr. T.M. Hariharan, learned counsel for the appellant very analytically put forth the said plea by referring to several decisions and texts dealing with the conditions of adoption to be valid under Hindu Law.