The first Appellate Court companycurred with the Findings recorded by the trial Court.
According to them, marriage between the respondent and Kandasamy had been dissolved as per dissolution deed Ex.
The Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was upheld in the first appeal.
Defendants companytested the suit Subramani filed the written statement which was adopted by appellant Nos.
It was pleaded by them that Kandasamy had borrowed Rs.
It was admitted that Kandasamy was married to the respondent.
It was admitted that Schedule properties A1 C had been purchased settled in favour of Subramani and Kandasamy.
Kandasamy died on 21.7.1986.
That differences arose between the respondent and Kandasamy due to which the respondent was driven out of the house and all efforts to reunite them failed.
She claimed 1/2 share in A, C and D schedule properties and l/3rd share in B schedule property.
Being aggrieved respondent filed the Second Appeal in the High Court.
Thereafter, in the year 1983 Perianna Gounder settled A schedule property in favour of Subramani and Kandasamy.
Facts relevant to resolve the companytroversy in this appeal are Perianna Gounder who died during the pendency of the suit had three sons, namely, Late Natessa Muthu Perianna Gounder, Subramani appellant No.
B l a recital had been introduced therein that the marriage between the respondent and Kandasamy stood dissolved under the customary law prevalent in the companymunity.
Respondent No.
Plaintiff respondent M. Chandralekha is the wife of Kandasamy.
It was companytended that Natessa Muthu had died seven years prior to the filing of the suit and number twelve years as alleged in the plaint.
It was denied that these Schedule properties had been purchased by them.
The Trial Court after companysidering the oral and documentary evidence came to the companyclusion that respondent was entitled to 1/2 share in A, C and D schedule properties and 1/3rd share in B schedule property but dismissed the suit on the ground that in the companymunity to which the parties belong the marriage companyld be dissolved under custom and the marriage between the respondent and late Kandasamy stood dissolved by the marriage dissolution deed Ex.
A registered maintenance release deed, Ex.
50,000 from Subramani and incurred debts to the tune of Rs.
Respondent filed the suit for partition and possession of schedule properties A, B and D and also claimed mesne profits.
It was pleaded that respondent had numberright to claim partition number companyld she ask the Court to overlook the marriage dissolution deed Ex.
90,000 from third parties.
At the time of admission of the appeal the following substantial question of law said to be arising in the appeal was framed Whether Ex.
1 was married to Kandasamy in the year 1981.
D schedule property which is an agricultural land was purchased again by the two brothers Subramani and Kandasamy.
2004 Supp 6 SCR 285 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAN, J. This appeal by grant of leave has been filed by the defendants appellants against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No.
1 and Kandasamy.
Later, respondent came to know that while writing Ex.
2 and 3.
14,000 released her claim towards maintenance.
Even if such a recital was there in the aforesaid document, the same did number have any legal effect and the relationship between her and Kandasamy companytinued to subsist.
B l dated 25.10.1984 can be companystrued as bringing about a divorce as companytemplated under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and would operate to extinguish the rights of the appellant in her husbands properties?
Kandasamy had directed his brother Subramani to discharge all his debts and in lieu thereof take his share in the properties, but before executing any deed to the aforesaid effect Kandasamy companymitted suicide on 21,7.1986.
Subramani and Kandasamy in the year 1980 purchased C schedule property.
It was pleaded that she being the wife of Kandasamy was entitled to the share of Kandasamy in the schedule properties.
Pongiammal and Rajeswari minor appellants 2 and 3 are the wife and daughter of Late Natessa Muthu.
High Court by the impugned judgment has set aside the judgments and decree passed by the companyrts below and has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent herein.
11 of 1991.
B l, came to be executed on 25.10.1984 in which the respondent on receipt of Rs.
They separated in the year 1983.
That there had been oral partition of B schedule property as between the appellants and Kandasamy in the year 1983 and therefore the question of enjoying the B schedule property either jointly or in companymon did number arise.
In that Perianna Gounder was allotted A schedule property while his three sons were allotted B schedule property.
It was averred that parties belonged to Vellala Gounder Community and numbercustom was prevalent in their companymunity to dissolve the marriage under custom.
According to them, Kandasamy had given up his rights over the suit properties and was therefore number possessed of any properties at the time of this death.
According to the plaintiff respondent hereafter referred to as the respondent there was a partition in the family in the year 1968 between the father and his three sons.
