MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER AND ANR. Vs. RANGAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We agree with Sethuraman, J., and his conclusions. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 861 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirupur, are the appellants. There was another plaintiff (third plaintiff) who claimed to be a lessee of the suit property through plaintiffs 1 and 2. One Palani Gounder whose wife is Palaniakkal (hereinafter referred to as 'Akkal') had two sons and one daughter. The plaintiffs' case is that the suit property which was purchased admittedly in the name of Akkal on 30th May, 1932 is a joint family property or, in any event, the property belonging to Palani Gounder and that property has to be inherited by them along with the first defendant who is the daughter and the claim of the first defendant that the suit property is streedhana property of Akkal and that she is the only heir entitled to it has to be discountenanced and the suit decreed as prayed for, by them.

(2.) The District Munsif who tried the suit held that the property was the property of Akkal, that there was no evidence to show that Palani Gounder ever asserted his rights over the property and that his possession either during the lifetime of Akkal or after her death was not in his own right but in a representative capacity either representing his wife or his daughter, the first defendant. The learned District Munsif referred to the fact that the plaintiffs have come to Court with a false case because the third plaintiff who claims to be a lessee of the suit property is not even aware as to what crops were raised. Naturally, therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that the third plaintiff was only brought into the picture to speak for the plaintiffs and he could never have been in possession of the property. In the light of his findings that the beneficial interest over the property always belonged to Akkal and the possession, if any, by Palani Gounder should be held to be on her behalf and after her death on behalf of the first defendant, he rejected the claim of the plaintiffs.

(3.) On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the said decision and was of the view that even thought the title to the property stood in the name of Akkal as per the recitals in Exhibit A -l, it should be held to be a benami purchase and that Palani Gounder was the real owner of the property. He also held, in the circumstances, that Palani Gounder should be held to be a person in possession of the property as manager of the joint Hindu family. In the light of such findings rendered by him and as after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, the first defendant would be entitled as class -1 heir to a l/9th share in the suit property, he decreed) the suit to the extent of 8/9th share therein and held that that plaintiffs 1 and 2 would equally be entitled to the same. The first defendant and along with her, the second defendant, her husband came up in appeal. Sethuraman, J., did not agree with the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge but accepted that of the District Munsif and dismissed the action.