MAYA JOTHI Vs. RANGANAYAKI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No. 122 of 1972 on the file of the District Munsif of Ami who succeeded before the trial Court, but failed before the lower appellate Court is the appellant herein. She filed the suit against her mother for a declaration of her title to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same or in the alternative for an injunction restraining the defendant from in any way dealing with the property prejudicially to her interest during her life time. The circumstances under which the plaintiff filed the suit may briefly be stated.

(2.) THE plaintiff's father one Abboy Naidu married the plaintiff's mother, the defendant as his third wife and with a view to induce her to marry him, he executed a settlement deed Exhibit A -1 in respect of certain properties which he valued at Rs. 300. The plaintiff was born of that marriage. Subsequently the defendant began to live separately from the husband in view of alleged ill -treatment by the husband, Abboy Naidu. As a result of this separation, Abboy Naidu filed a suit in O.S. No. 274 of 1949 for setting aside the settlement deed Exhibit A -1 as sham and nominal. That suit was dismissed. Later, the defendant filed O.S. No. 578 of 1950 against her husband for a declaration of her title to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same from the husband. That suit ended in her favour and as a result of the decree obtained in her favour, she got possession of the suit property.

(3.) THEREAFTER the plaintiff filed the present suit claiming that as her mother was unchaste and has not been living with her father, the defendant has lost all her interest in the suit property and the plaintiff has become absolutely entitled to the properties covered by the settlement deed. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground (1) that the settlement deed Exhibit A -1 conferred on her an absolute estate and the plaintiff could not claim any interest in the suit property, (2) that the decree passed in O.S. No. 578 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Arni against her husband for declaring her title to the suit property and for recovery of possession on the strength of the settlement deed, is binding on the plaintiff and that even otherwise, it will operate as res judicata to the claim put forward by the plaintiff in this suit and (3) that since the defendant has been in continuous adverse possession of the suit property as against the plaintiff from 1951, she should be taken to have perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession.