Assailing the said Trial Courts decision the appellant herein filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court.
B 1 and B 2 which are the voters list of 1978 and 1983 wherein it appears that the first defendant was described as the wife of Mannangatti and Ponnangatti.
The brief facts of the case are as follows The respondents herein plaintiffs before the Trial Court filed a suit for declaration and injunction with regard to the properties described as schedule A and schedule B properties and the Trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs for both the schedule properties.
Assailing the said decree an appeal was preferred by the present appellant before the First Appellate Court.
The first defendant respondent also produced Exs.
Both were in possession and enjoyment of Ponnangatti Gounder and Muniammal and after their death the plaintiffs were and are in possession of the said properties.
The High Court dealt with the matter at length.
The High Court after perusing the facts and the evidence on record by the said judgment and order allowed the second appeal companyfirming the order of the Trial Court and setting aside the order passed by the first appellate companyrt.
The High Court duly assessed all documents and held that numberreliance can be placed on the Exh.
It is further stated that on December 15, 1977 Ponnangatti married to the first defendant, the appellant herein in the Devasthanam of Sri Perianayaki Saneda Kanagagiri Eswarar at Devikapuram.
Ponnangatti Gounder acquired the suit A schedule property through succession from his ancestors.
B 3 to B 6 as they only represent the unilateral description of the first defendant as wife of Ponnangatti Gounder.
B 7 was a mortgage deed executed just prior to the filing of the suit where also the unilateral description of the first defendant as wife of Ponnangatti Gounder can be seen.
The disputes pertained to the properties which were held by deceased Ponnangatti Gounder and his first wife who pre deceased him.
The plaintiffs, respondents herein, filed Original Suit No.
B 8 which was produced from the lawful custody of the trustee of the temple.
B 6 in respect of which the decree passed by the Trial Court was companyfirmed by the Lower Appellate Court, the defendant has numberclaim over the same.
B 3 and B 4 and bankers reply were also produced to show that the first defendant was described as wife of the deceased Ponnangatti Gounder.
B 9 and B 10 were also produced and said to be the accounts for the gifts made at the time of the said marriage.
59 of 1985 before the District Munsif Court at Polur as the legal heirs of deceased Ponnangatti Gounder.
Similarly, Ex.
Issues were framed by the Trial Court and after assessing the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court decreed the suit for both A and B schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs.
The suit property mentioned as schedule B property was purchased by Muniammal by registered companyveyance deed dated September 14, 1970.
After the death of Muniammal, it is alleged by the first defendant and her brother, the second defendant that the said Ponnangatti Gounder married the first defendant as a result whereof she made a claim over the suit property.
The Lower Appellate Court companyfirmed the B schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs respondents herein but reversed the decree with regard to A Schedule property culminating in filing the second appeal.
So far as the dispute, as it appears, cannot be extended with regard to schedule B property which belonged to Muniammal, since it was purchased by her on September 14, 1970 through Ex.
It is stated by the appellant herein before the Trial Court that Muniammal died ten years ago i.e. in 1976.
The pass books of the bank accounts for the year 1984 and 1985 being Exs.
B 8 was produced from the lawful custody of trustee of the temple and the said trustee while examining, deposed before the Court in his cross examination that he did number know about the actual marriage said to have been companyducted in the temple.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated July 22, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No.1806 of 1992.
To prove the factum of marriage, she produced a temple receipt before the High Court being Ex.
