G PANNEERSELVAM Vs. AYYANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following are the gist of the pleadings of the plaintiff in O.S.No.792 of 1993 who is defendant in all other suits:-1.(a) THE properties covered by the suits are coffee estate lands sprawling to an extent of 48.76 Acres situated in Mundagambadi village in Yercaud Taluk, a house and Rice mill with godown in Kannankurichi, Salem. THEy originally belonged to one Rengayya Chettiar, who is elder brother of Venkatarama Chettiar who is paternal grandfather of the plaintiff. At the time of filing of the suit the plaintiff Krishnan was 14 years of age. He was declared as major on 3.7.2000 by order passed in I.A.No.381 of 2000.1.(b) Rengayya Chettiar had two wives. First wife is one Janaki Ammal through whom he had one daughter by name Amsaveni who was insane from birth. After the death of Janaki Ammal, he married the first defendant Padmavathi @ Padmalochini (hereinafter referred to as Padmalochini). She had no issues. She did not live with her husband and she filed suit for maintenance and got decree in her favour. Rengayya Chettiar preferred two appeals in A.S.No.684 of 1992 and A.S.No.718 of 1981. Pending hearing of the appeals, he died on 28.12.1982. While he was hale and healthy, he executed a Registered Will on 14.01.1980, bequeathing all his properties to the plaintiff by appointing one V. Sekar, father of the plaintiff as testamentary guardian to administer the estates till the minor attained majority. On 28.1.1980, he also settled the properties in favour of the plaintiff by means of a registered settlement deed. Since he was very old aged 82 years, having no male issues, he adopted the plaintiff on 30.01.1980 by performing "Dathahomam" for adoption in the presence of elders. At that time Padmalochani was also present. Subsequently an adoption deed was also written and registered.1.(c) After the demise of Rengayya Chettiar, plaintiff Krishnan filed applications in the appeals to implead him as party before the High Court Madras and the High Court directed the court below to hold an enquiry as to whether the plaintiff alone was legal representative to the deceased. Padamalochani received two lakhs from the next friend of the minor plaintiff then and gave it in writing that she did not have any interest in his properties. She has also accepted therein that the deeds in favour of minor plaintiff were valid. Because of her voluntary statement, the Court also decided that the plaintiff is the legal representative of the deceased. After the settlement, the plaintiff got the properties and had been enjoying through his father and next friend V. Sekar. Patta was changed to his name and he has been paying the land revenue also.1 (d). As regards the settlement executed by Rengayya Chettiar, he paid a sum of Rs.72,000/- as gift tax to the Income Tax Department. It was paid through his auditor one Sundaram. During second week of October 1993, it was given out that Padmalochani sold the properties to 3 to 16 defendants with the assistance of the second defendant. THE said sales do not affect the rights of the plaintiff. THE plaintiff alone has been in possession and enjoyment of the properties, defendants could not get any patta from the revenue department. Hence, suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) THE following are succinct allegations of defence contained in the written statement and the plaints filed by Padmalochani:-2.(a) It is false to state that on 14.1.1980, Rengayya Chettiar executed a will in favour of the plaintiff. It is equally incorrect to state that on 28.1.1980 he settled the properties in favour of the plaintiff. It is not admitted that on 30.1.1990 Regayya Chettiar adopted plaintiff and she was also present at the time of adoption. She was not informed by her advocate Mr. P.T. Duraisamy while the enquiry was held and the plaintiff was declared as legal representative of the deceased Rengayya Chettiar. Only after the receipt of summons in O.S.No.792 of 1993 she came to know that a full satisfaction memo was filed on her behalf after receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- Immediately she sent a registered notice to the Advocate P.T. Duraisamy cancelling her vakalat and also sent complaint to Tamil Nadu Bar Council against the advocate and the same is pending. Above said full satisfaction memo is not binding on her. She had never received Rs.2 lakhs and not signed the documents. She is the sole representative for the deceased. It is denied that in pursuance of the settlement, the plaintiff took possession on 28.01.1980. Rengayya Chettiar enjoyed the property and after his death this defendant is in possession. 2.(b) In O.S.No.133 of 1980, she has not admitted the Will and Settlement. On 21.12.1982 Rengayya Chettiyar executed a Will in her favour which was attested by advocate P.T. Duraisamy. She executed sale deeds in favour of defendants 3 to 16 and one Paneerselvam. She had to sell the property for medical expenses and funeral expenses of her husband Rengayya Chettiar and for like expenses for Amsaveni. Since the plaintiff was not a party to the earlier suits, he need not pay Rs.2 lakhs to her. By virtue of the Will dated 21.12.1982, the earlier Will and Settlement Deed were cancelled. As per the plaintiff, when he is adopted son of Rengayya Chettiar, the suit is not maintainable, as Sekar, his natural father acts as his next friend. Hence the suit has to be dismissed.

(3.) (i) O.S.No.62 of 1996 was filed by one Panneer Selvam who is a purchaser from Padmalochani Ammal, in which he has stated that on 13.8.1993 the properties covered by the sale deed were purchased by him from Padmalochani Ammal. The other allegations in the plaintiff are as found in the written statement filed by Padmalochani Ammal.5.(ii) 5th defendant krishnan is plaintiff in O.S.No.792 of 1993. He filed written statement which was filed by 4th defendant his father and next friend which was adopted by 3rd respondent. In this written statement, identical allegations are contained as stated in the plaintiff in O.S.No.792 of 1993.5.(iii) O.S.No.374 of 2002, O.S.No.376 of 2002, O.S.No.400 of 2002 and O.S.No.640 of 2002 have been filed by Padmalochani and the then minor Arun Chakravarthi Gupta, against the plaintiff Krishnan and his father Sekar. In all the plaints, her pleadings are similar as found in the written statement filed by her in O.S.No.792 of 1993.