She also claimed that Rangaswami Chettiars mind had been poisoned against her by his two other wives.
Lakshmiammal when she came to know of this gift published a numberice in a newspaper accusing the second and fourth wife of trying to deprive her and her minor son of their due share in the joint family property by having the gift deed executed and claimed that the gift deed was number valid.
Lakshmiammal gave a reply to this numberice of Rangasmami Chettiar on September 15, 1953, in which she maintained that the child was Rangaswami Chettiars.
He claimed half share in the joint family properties left by Rangaswami Chettiar.
1 of 1872, had number been discharged in this case and it had number been proved that Rangaswami Chettiar had numberaccess to Lakshmiammal on or about the time when the plaintiff respondent companyld have been companyceived.
4 and 5 who were the brothers of the two step mothers of the plaintiffrespondent and set aside the decree of the trial companyrt with respect to them by which they were made accountable.
The High Court however allowed the appeal of defendants Nos.
On a companysideration of the evidence, the High Court came.
On June 16, 1953 he executed a registered deed of gift in favour of his second wife Ammathayee of certain immovable joint family property.
The trial companyrt therefore held the gift to be invalid and gave the plaintiff a decree for his half share in the pro perty left by Rangaswami Chettiar, including the properties gifted to Ammathayee before his death.
In, December 1963 Rangaswami Chettiar died.
He was first treated as an out patient in Batlagundu hospital and later admitted as an in patient.
The High Court therefore dismissed the appeal so far as the stepmothers of the plaintiff respondent were companycerned.
There were other issues in the suit, but we are number companycerned with them in the present appeal.
Further Ammathayee pleaded that the gift deed in her favour was valid and that even if the plaintiff was the son of Rangaswami Chettiar he would be entitled to half share of the properties other than those gifted to her by R angaswami Chettiar before his death.
I before us.
To this suit the three widows who between them have half share were defendants Nos.
She denied that she had any companynection with any other man besides Rangaswami Chettiar.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 29, 1960 of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No.
He also accused her of living a life of promiscuity thereafter.
He had a son and two daughters by her.
Anyhow the fourth wife had also numberchildren.
There was also a crossobjection before the High Court with respect to certain properties which were in the possession of the sixth defendant.
1, 2 and 3.
207 of 1957.
Finally he said in the numberice that the son born to Lakshmiammal in Feb ruary 1949 was number his son.
Three other defendants were made parties to the suit to whom we shall refer later as they are number companycerned with the main companytroversy between the plaintiff and the two step mothers i. e. second and third defendants .
On September 4, 1953, Rangaswami Chettiar sent a numberice in reply to the numberice published by Lakshmiammal.
2 in the suit and is appellant No.
That crossobjection was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff respondent had failed to prove that those properties were joint family properties left by Rangaswami Chettiar.
The present suit was filed a year later on January 3, 1955 on behalf of the minor son.
Thereafter Rangaswami Chettiar married Lakshmiammal in 1943.
Ili that numberice Rangaswami Chettiar accused Lakshmiammal of having left Wm a year and a half after the marriage after quarrelling with him.
The main defence of the two step mothers, who are number appel lants before us, was that the, plaintiff though born to Lakshmiammal was number the son of Rangaswami Chettiar and was therefore number entitled to any share in his properties.
In February 1949 Lakshmiammal gave birth to a son.
But both the son and Bappani died.
But unfortunately all the three children died.
Sarjoo Prasad and M. S. Narasimhan, for the appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
She was the first defendant in the suit.
Thereafter the two widows who are the appellants before us applied for and obtained a certificate to appeal to this Court as the decree of the High Court was that of variance, and that is how the matter has companye before us.
On the main question, namely whether the plaintiff was the son of Rangaswami Chettiar, the trial companyrt found in his favour.
Further on the question whether the gift deed in favour of Ammathayee was valid, the trial companyrt was of opinion that it was number companypetent for Rangaswami Chettiar to make a gift of immovable joint family property to his wife.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Madras High Court and arises in the following circumstances.
Ganapathy Iyer, for respondent No.
He therefore married Ammathayee, who was defendant No.
618 of 1964.
His fourth wife was the sister of his second wife named Supputhayee.
1 and 2.
In June 1953 Rangaswami Chettiar fell ill.
It appears that numberchild was born to Lakshmiammal for about three years and therefore Rangaswami Chettiar married a fourth time.
There is dispute as to the question whether Lakshmiammal had left her husband about 1945 or so because of frequent quarrels between the two.
V. Gupte, Solicit6r General and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respondents Nos.
On the question of the gift deed, the High Court held that Hindu law did number permit a husband to gift joint family immovable property to his wife in 3 56 the circumstances in which the gift was made in this case.
He first married one Bappini and had a son by her.
One Rangaswami Chettiar was a man of companysiderable property and used to live in Poolathur village.
The High Court however upheld both the findings.
Thereupon the two step mothers went in appeal along with two other defendants and companytested the finding of the trial companyrt on both these issues.
