VEDANAYAGA MUDALIAR Vs. VEDAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, as the paternal aunt's son or bandhu of the deceased Sankaramoorti Mudaliyar, sues for a declaration of his right to the property left by the deceased, on the ground that the defendant, the deceased's mother, is not entitled to the property, she having been a party to his murder, but that the plaintiff, as the next in succession, is the person that has the right thereto. The defendant and a Muhammadan by name Shaik Abdul Kadir Ravutban, with whom she is alleged to have been criminally intimate prior to the death of her son, were tried for the murder in the Sessions Court of Tinnevelly. She was, however, acquitted while her alleged paramour was convicted of the offence.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge, without trying the question whether the defendant was concerned in the murder, dismissed the suit.

(3.) The first question for consideration is whether the plaintiff can ask for mere declaration; and if so, whether, as urged for the defendant, the Court should, in the circumstances to be referred to, refuse the relief prayed for. Now as to the first point. Prior to the death of Sankaramoorti, he having been a minor, proceedings regarding the appointment of a guardian for him had been taken under the Guardian and Wards Act. Pending those proceedings, the District Court of Tinnevelly appointed the plaintiff as Receiver and put him in actual possession of the properties of the minor, removing the defendant from the charge thereof. This Court held that the District Court had no power to appoint a Receiver in the course of the guardianship proceedings and directed that possession of the property should be handed back to the defendant. This order for re-delivery to the defendant was no doubt passed subsequent to the death of her son, but it had not been carried out to any extent at the date of the suit.