P KOKILAMBAL Vs. PSUDARAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the plaintiff for partition, for delivery, to her of her share in the plaint property, for declaration that the mortgage by the 1 and 2nd defendants in favour of the 4th defendant is not valid and binding on her, for the appointment of a Receiver, for costs and for further reliefs. The plaintiff and Nos. defendants 1 to 3 are dancing girls. The 1 defendant is the mother of the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant is the daughter of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant is the daughter of the 2nd defendant. The 4 defendant is the mortgagee of the property from the 1 defendant, the 2nd defendant having stood surety for the first defendant in the transaction. The case for the plaintiff is that the house which is mortgagees the joint family property of the plaintiff, and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that there was a house, 53, Iyappah Chetty Street, Madras, which was inherited by the 1 defendant from her mother and grandmother, that the suit property was purchased by the 1 defendant while it was subject to a mortgage in favour of Annaduraier, that for purposes of paying off that mortgage, house No. 58, Iyappah Street, was also mortgaged by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, and that with the monies raised on the mortgage and sale, of their jewels the suit house was purchased, that subsequently to discharge that mortgage house No. 58 was sold by the plaintiff and the 1 defendant, that in 1913 one Alwar Chetty was the paramour of the 2nd defendant, that there were quarrels in 1914 between the plaintiff and the 1 defendant and the plaintiff left the suit house and lived separately, that in order to help this Alwar Chetty defendants Nos. 1 and 2 borrowed Rs. 15,000 from the 4 defendant, that Alwar Chetty became insolvent, that Sampath Iyya who was the brother-in-law and agent of the 4 defendant, knew Alwar Chetty and the fact that he was the paramour of the 2nd defendant, that the loan of Rs. 1,5,000 was really borrowed for the purpose of helping Alwar Chetty who was in difficulties and that the mortgage is not consequently binding on the plaintiff and her share of the properties. The 1 defendant filed a written statement supporting the allegations of the plaintiff and stating that she entered into this transaction in the belief that Alwar Chetty would liquidate the debt borrowed on his behalf and he had not done so. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement also admitting the various allegations of the plaintiff. She says that she was induced to stand surety, that she was the mistress of Alwar Chetty and was under his influence and that it was represented that money was required for his benefit. The 3rd defendant's guardian ad litem filed a written statement stating that she is entitled to one- eighth share in the property, that the mortgage is not binding on her as it was not for any antecedent debt or for family necessity. The 4 defendant filed a written statement putting the plaintiff to proof of the allegations in the plaint as to the joint nature of the family and as to the property being joint family property. She says that the property mortgaged is the absolute property of the 1 defendant, that there were various mortgages and transactions in which the 1 defendant represented to be the absolute owner of the property, that the debt was borrowed, for necessary purposes and that she is a bona fide lender without notice of the rights of any other party and must be protected.

(2.) The following issues have been framed: 1. Do the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 form members of an undivided family of devadasis possessed of properties ancestrally or jointly acquired? 2. Was the house and ground No. 58, Iyappa Chetty Street, Madras, the ancestral family property of the plaintiff and the 1 defendant?

(3.) Was the house and ground No. 76, Perumal Mudali Street, George Town, Madras, purchased out of or with the aid of joint family assets or was it purchased by the 1st defendant out of her self-acquisitions?