AMBIGAA ANANDAN Vs. P K JAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Petition is filed under Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925 for the issuance of a Succession Certificate in the matter of debts of late A. Anandan, who died intestate.

(2.) THE first petitioner claims to be the wife of late A. Anandan. THE second petitioner is the minor son and the third is the minor daughter of the first petitioner. Petitioners 2 and 3 were said to have been born out of the Wedlock between the first petitioner and A. Anandan. THE respondent is the mother of the late A. Anandan. After the formalities, the evidence of the first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and that of the respondent was examined as R.W.1.

(3.) WHILE the first petitioner/first defendant filed a written statement in the suit, the second defendant never filed any statement. The first petitioner also filed a maintenance application before the Family Court at Chennai in M.C.No.60 of 2003. That maintenance application was dismissed for default and never pursued by the first petitioner. Neither in her written statement nor in the maintenance application, she had mentioned about the second petitioner as her son. Apart from that, the petitioner also has a daughter by name Divya who was born to the first petitioner before the alleged date of marriage claimed by the first petitioner. The suit came to be dismissed in view of the death of the respondent"s son. Therefore, she prayed that no relief should be given to the petitioners as they are not the legally wedded wife and the natural born son and daughter of late Anandan.