NAGALINGAM Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Nagapattinam, in A.S. No. 190 of 1984 confirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Nannilam, in O.S. No. 334 of 1983. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff for directing the defendants to surrender the suit property and put the plaintiff in possession of the same and for directing the first defendant to render, account of the suit property for Fasli 1390 onwards till the date of delivery. According to the plaintiff, the property belonged to one Narayana Pillai who had a daughter by name Chinnammal and son by name Ramaiah Pillai. THE said Chinnammal's husband was one Narayanasamy. THE said Narayanasamy had four brothers viz., Muthiah Pillai, Ramaiah Pillai, Muthuvel Pillai and one Chockalingam Pillai. THE present plaintiff is the son of Chockalingam Pillai. In other words, the plaintiff is the son of Chinnammal's husband's brother. THE original owner Narayanasamy Pillai's son Ramaiah Pillai died leaving behind his wife Pushpavalli Ammal. THE second defendant is the foster son of the said Pushpavalli Ammal. THE plaintiff further contended that the original owner Narayanasamy Pillai executed a registered Will on 3.12.1932 in a sound disposing state of mind and as per the terms of the Will a life interest was created in favour of his daughter in law and pursuant to the Will, Pushpavalli Ammal, the daughter-in-law was enjoying the property during her life time. She died on 27.10.1980. THErefore, the testator Narayana Pillai's only daughter Chinnammal got vested remainder over the suit properties and she executed a registered Will on 7.3.1944 in a sound and disposing state of mind which was duly executed, attested and registered in accordance with law. In terms of the Will, the properties were absolutely given in favour of the plaintiff. THErefore, the plaintiff being the legatee under the Will had succeeded to the suit property after the death of Pushpavalli Ammal on 27.10.1980. Pushpavalli Ammal being only life interest holder alienated the property in favour of the first defendant a few years ago and the said alienation cannot hold good after the life time of Pushpavalli Ammal. THErefore, the alienation was not valid and not operative after her death. THE present plaintiff had become the absolute owner of the suit property on the death of Pushpavalli Ammal. His right to question the alienation arose only on her death. THErefore, the plaintiff issued lawyer's notice on 13.2.1981 calling upon the defendants to surrender the suit properties. But the defendants had acknowledged the notice, but had not chosen to give any reply. THE defendants have no right or interest over the property. THEy are bound to surrender the property. THE second defendant being the foster son of Pushpava lli Animal was a party to the sale "transaction in favour of the first defendant and hence the second defendant was added as a party to the suit. THE plaintiff further submitted that the first defendant had realised the fruits of the income for the fasli 1390 and therefore, he was bound to render accounts, to the plaintiff.

(3.) MR. C.S. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the respondents contends that several rulings of the Supreme Court had clearly laid down that any property given to a Hindu family for maintenance would be covered by Section 14(1) of the Act. He would further state that there was no finding to the effect that the suit property was the self acquired property of Narayana Pillai. Under Hindu Law father-in-law always had a duty to maintain the spouse and the issues of his sons and as such the father-in-law had a duty and obligation to maintain the daughter-in-law. Therefore, the property vested with the widow was pursuant to her pre-existing right and therefore, governed by Section 14(1) of the Act.