A S MYTHILI Vs. RAMASAMY BATTACHARIYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O. S. No. 349 of 1990 on the file of principal District Munsif, Trivellore, is the appellant. suit filed by the plaintiff was one for declaration that plaint scheduled property belong to her absolutely and for recovery of possession from the defendant. The material averments in the plaint could be summarised thus:

(2.) THE property originally belonged to late Sami battachariyar who had two sons viz. , Anantha Battachariyar and Seshu battachariyar. He had also a daughter by name Rajammal.

(3.) THE following substantial questions of law have been raised in the memorandum of appeal: (A) Whether the courts below are right in its appreciation of Section 15 (1) (b) and Section 8 f Hindu Succession Act in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not a legal heir and not entitled to any where in the suit property" (B) Whether the Lower Court are right in considering exs. B1 in coming to the conclusion that the defendant is the legal heir of sesha Battachariyar and Kalyani Ammal" (C) Whether the Lower courts had properly appreciated the evidence on record in coming to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit properties"