PONDICHERRY KOKILAMBAL Vs. PONDICHERRY SUNDARAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the plaintiff for partition, for a 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 fourth defendant is not valid and binding on Let for the appointment of a receiver, for costs and for further reliefs. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are dancing girls. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff, the second defendant is the daughter of the plaintiff and the third defendant is the daughter of the second defendant. The fourth defendant is the mortgagee of the property from the 1 defendant the second defendant having stood surety for the first defendant in the transaction. The case for the plaintiff is that the house which is mortgaged is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, that there was a house, 58, Iyappah Chetty Street, Madras, which was inherited by the first defendant from her mother and grand-mother that the suit property was purchased by the first defendant, while it was subject to a mortgage, in favour of Annaduraier, that for purposes of paying off that mortgage, house No. 58, Iyappah Chetty Street, was also mortgaged, by the plaintiff and the first 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 first defendant, that in 1913, one Alwar Chetty was the paramour of the second defendant, that there were quarrels in 1914 between the plaintiff and the first defendant and the plaintiff left the suit house and lived separately, that in order to help this Alwar Chetty, defendants 1 arid 2 borrowed Rs. 15,000 from the fourth defendant, that Alwar Chetty became insolvent, that Sampath Ayya, who was the brother-in-law and agent of the fourth defendant, knew Alwar Chetty and the fact that he was the paramour of the second defendant, that the loan of Rs. 15,000 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 has not done so. The second 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 third 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 fourth 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 properly of the first defendant, that there were various mortgages and transactions, in which the first 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 1 to 3 form members of an undivided family of Devadasies, possessed of properties ancestrally or jointly acquired? 2. Was the house and ground No. 58 Ivappa 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 1 defendant out of her self-acquisitions?