CHITRA DEVI Vs. CHEMBAGAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S. No. 81 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry is the appellant herein. The said suit was filed by her against her father and her sister for declaration declaring that the settlement executed by her father is valid to an extent of 1/8th share and the remaining property is to be partitioned by metes and bounds after the death of her father.

(2.) The facts could be summarised as hereunder :First defendant Murugesa Pillai was married to plaintiff's mother one Rajalakshmi. It is averred in the plaint that the parties belong to Pondicherry and are governed by the Pondicherry Customary Hindu Law. The suit property was acquired by the first defendant and as per Customary law, his daughters are the apparent heirs to inherit the suit property. Two years after the birth of the plaintiff, the first defendant and his wife namely mother of the plaintiff got separated and a divorce was also granted. When the plaintiff coming to know that her father is going to execute a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant, she issued a notice not to do so. At that time, the first defendant challenged the paternity and legitimacy of the plaintiff and according to him, the plaintiff is the daughter of the said Rajalakshmi's second husband. According to the plaintiff, the denial of paternity is not correct and she being the daughter, under the Customary Hindu Law of Pondicherry, the settlement is valid only to the extent of 1/8th share in regard to the property belonging to the first defendant.

(3.) The above suit was filed to declare that the plaintiff is the legitimate daughter of the first defendant and that she is entitled for partition, excluding the 1/8th share, which alone could be gifted under the Pondicherry Customary Hindu Law.