RAJAMMAL Vs. LAKSHMI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second defendant, who lost in the Courts below, is the appellant in this second appeal, which arises out of a suit instituted by the respondents herein, for a declaration that they are entitled to the western portion of the suit property delineated M, N, O, P in the plaint sketch and also for the consequential relief of restraining the appellant from in any way interfering with the respondent's possession and enjoyment of the said property and also for recovery of possession of the portion marked A, B, C, D in the plaint sketch from the appellant.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondents the suit property which is a house in Paramakudi belonged to one Alagu Chettiar. Alagu Chettiar died leaving behind him, two sons, Vellaichami Chettiar and Chellam Chettiar. The first son Vellaichami Chettiar had two wives and through his first wife, he had a son by name Krishnan Chettiar and through his second wife, Meenakshi, he had another son of the name of Nataraja. Vellaichami Chettiar died on 3rd August, 1928, while Chellam Chettiar died on 25th February, 1938. Krishna Chettiar, son of Vellaichami Chettiar through his first wife, pre -deceased his father and died on 7th July, 1924, leaving behind him his widow Soundirathnammal (first defendant in the suit) and a daughter Raj Ammal (the second defendant in suit), Natarajan son of Vellaichami Chettiar, through his second wife Meenakshi, died on 15th January, 1969, leaving behind him his widow Lakshmi (first plaintiff) and a daughter the second plaintiff. On 4th November, 1924, there was a partition between Vellaichami Chettiar and his brother Chellam Chettiar, according to which, Chellam Chettiar and his branch were allotted the eastern portion of the suit property and other properties, while the western portion of the suit property was allotted to the branch of Vellaichami Chettiar. Inasmuch as Krishnan Chettiar, son of Vellaichami Chettiar, through his first wife, had pre -deceased his father, the western half of the suit property marked as M, N, O, P devolved upon his only surviving son Nataraja. Nataraja thus become exclusively entitled to M, N, O, P portion and after the death of Chellam Chettiar in the year 1938, the eastern portion of the suit property devolved upon his four daughters and as a result of a settlement deed and a family arrangement. Nataraja became entitled to the eastern portion also. Thus Nataraja, according to the plaintiffs, became entitled to the entirety of the suit property though the present dispute is in relation to the western portion of the property marked as M, N, O, P as stated earlier. The case of the plaintiffs was as the husband of the first respondent viz., Krishnan Chettiar died in 1924, the first defendant was only entitled to be maintained from out of the family properties and she along with her daughter, the second defendant had been living in the family in the suit properties along with Nataraja and his family. The further case of the plaintiff was that it was Nataraja, who had celebrated the marriage of the second defendant also. The plaintiffs claimed that on 1st June, 1951, when Nataraja sold one of the joint family properties, the said document was attested by the first defendant and at that time, a sum of Rs. 825 was paid to her in full quit of her maintenance claim and therefore she was not even entitled to maintenance from out of the joint family properties, though she continued to live even thereafter with the family of Nataraja Chettiar and even after the death of Nataraja Chettiar, she had been living with the plaintiffs. Consequent to the death of Nataraja on 15th January, 1969, his widow the first plaintiff and his daughter the second plaintiff had became exclusively and absolutely entitled to the suit property by reason of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, and therefore, neither the first defendant nor the second defendant is entitled to any share therein. The first defendant, according to the plaintiffs, started setting up a false claim to the suit properties on the evil advice of the second defendant and her husband and the first defendant according to the plaintiffs, had also executed a will in favour of the second defendant purporting to bequeath the suit property to the second defendant, as if the first defendant was entitled to any rights therein. This will was characterised by the plaintiffs as invalid and not binding upon them as they are absolutely entitled to the property. The first defendant, according to the plaintiffs, fell ill in November, 1972 and she was brought and allowed to stay in a room in the suit property i.e., in the portion marked as A, B, C, D and in order to assert a claim to the suit property. It was under these circumstances that the respondents instituted the suit for a declaration of their title and for other reliefs set out earlier.

(3.) AN objection was also raised with reference to the valuation and the court -fee. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.