Aggrieved by the appeal being allowed, the respondents herein preferred a Second Appeal on the file of the High Court at Madras.
On these and among other allegations, the appellant Nos.
21 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur who heard the appeal held that in view of the decision in C.R.O.P. No.
In the memorandum of grounds of second appeal dated 08.10.1985, the respondents herein set forth the grounds as well as raised substantial questions of law which according to them arose for companysideration in the Second Appeal.
The learned District Munsif, Poonamallee, after framing the necessary issues, tried the same and held that Yengachari Muniammal succeeded to the property on the death of Munian and a limited right got enlarged by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, therefore, the settlement deed executed by her in favour of Pavalakodi Ammal was valid and the gift deed by Pavalakodi Ammal in favour of the first respondent was also valid and that the suit properties had number been in possession of the appellants.
1459 of 1972 against one Ganesan, Munuswami and the first respondent herein praying for declaration of title in respect of the A Schedule property and for permanent injunction in respect thereof and for possession of the B Schedule property.
To what reliefs the appellants defendants are entitled?
The learned single Judge rendered findings on point Nos.
21 of 1983 and restoring the judgment dated 21.01.1981 passed by the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee in O.S. No.
1 and 2 became entitled to the suit A Schedule property and that in a portion thereof measuring 10 feet X 15 feet one Muniswami trespassed and put up a thatched structure thereon and the said Muniswami had been residing in the said hut after trespass which had been done about two years prior to the present suit and that the property trespassed has been described as B Schedule property.
The brief history of the case is as follows The appellant Nos.
Whether the plaintiffs became entitled to the plaint A schedule property by virtue of survivorship and inheritance on the death of Kannan, who is the father of plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4 and husband of the 2nd plaintiff as alleged in para 3 of the plaint?
1 and 2 prayed for the aforesaid relief.
The appellants being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit preferred A.S. No.
He also held that the alleged family arrangement pleaded by virtue of which the suit properties was said to be allotted to Yengachari Muniammal had also number been proved and that the appellants cannot be number suited and that the first respondent cannot claim that it had acquired title by adverse possession and that the appellant had established that they are entitled to 3/4th share which Kannan, the father of the first appellant was entitled to on the death of Munian and that the respondents herein were entitled to the remaining 1/4th share which Yengachari Muniammal was entitled to and that the appellants are entitled to possession to B Schedule property.
271 of 1966 against one Shanmugham, Chinnammal, Algappan and Daniel Nadar since Shanmugham and Chinnammal had disputed the appellants title and that during the pendency of the said suit the said Shanmugham and Chinnammal died and by virtue of the appellants being the nearest heirs a decree was passed on 18.08.1972 in the said suit against the surviving defendants therein and that the appellants took delivery of the property through Court pursuant to the said decree and that by virtue of a family arrangement and partition as between the first appellant and appellant Nos.
However, another learned single Judge S.M. Sidickk, J. who finally heard the second appeal framed a fresh set of substantial questions of law for companysideration after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides and in the companyrse of rendering the judgment Whether Murivi, mother of Kannan, was the legally wedded wife of one Munian and whether her marriage with Munian is valid under law?
1 to 5 and held that Muruvi, mother of Kannan and grandmother of first appellant was number the legally wedded wife of Munian and that since Muruvi was number the legally wedded wife, Kannan cannot be said to be borne out a lawful marriage and that the source of title of Kannan to the property had number been traced and, therefore, the appellants were number entitled to the suit property by virtue of survivorship or inheritance on the death of Kannan and that the appellants are, therefore, number entitled to the reliefs claimed and that the suit properties belong to Yengachari Muniammal who settled the same in favour of Pavalakodi who in turn gifted it to the first respondent herein and that the appellants cannot succeed by picking holes in the defence taken and that the appellants have to establish their title independently and thus allowed the second appeal on a re appreciation of portions of evidence adduced and thereby set aside the judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and restored the judgment passed by the learned Munsif.
Ganesan and Munuswami who were arrayed as defendant Nos.
46/2, Nehru Nagar, Kathivakkam Village was a village house site which has been described as A Schedule property and the same had been in possession and enjoyment of the ancestors of the appellants in their own right for several decades and that the appellants were entitled to the said property by virtue of survivorship and inheritance on the death of the second appellants husband.
Lakshmanan, J. The above appeal was filed by the plaintiffs against the final judgment and order dated 28.07.1998 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No.
There appellants herein filed O.S. No.
20 of 1962 there was numberdoubt that Kannan, the father of the first appellant was the legitimate son of Munian and that numberdocuments had been produced to establish that the suit property was the self acquisition of Munian and that the settlement deed executed by Yengachari Muniammal referred to the property as being ancestral.
On these findings, the learned Subordinate Judge allowd the appeal and thereby set aside the judgment passed by the learned District Munsif.
Dr. AR.
1 and 2 filed a written statement companytending that the suit property had number been described properly and that Munian, the grandfather of the first appellant had two wives, namely, Yengachari Muniammal and Manali Muniammal and that the said Munian did number have three wives and that the first appellants fathers mother wasnot one of the wives of Munian as she was number married to him and that she was only a companycubine and that Kannan the father of the appellant was number a legitimate son and, therefore, he had numbermanner, right, title interest or possession of the suit properties at any time and that Munian, the grandfather of the first appellant was in exclusive possession of the suit properties and on his death his two widows succeeded as his only heirs and as per the family arrangement as between them the suit properties was allotted to Yengachari Muniammal and that she was in possession and enjoyment in her own right as full owner and that the appellants and or their father had numberright, title or interest in the suit properties and that the said Muniammal had dealt with the property as absolute owner thereof and had registered settlement deed dated 01.08.1961 in favour of her brothers daughter Pavalakodi Ammal and that she had been in possession and enjoyment as full owner from the date of settlement and that the said Pavalakodi Ammal had executed a gift deed in favour of the first respondent herein of which Ganesan D 1 was a trustee and that he had been put in possession of the suit property on the date of the gift deed as trustee of the first respondent herein and that Muniammal had also joined the execution of the gift deed by way of abundant caution and that Ganesan had allowed Muniswami D 2 to occupy the hut as a tenant and on these among other allegations prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Whether Kannan father of plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4 and husband of 2nd plaintiff was born to Munian and Murivi out of their lawful wedlock?
2147 of 1985 allowing the same and reversing the judgment dated 14.09.1984 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur in A.S. No.
3 and 4, appellant Nos.
Whether the Respondents plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of plaint A schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession of the plaint B schedule property as prayed for in the plaint?
1 and 2 instituted the suit O.S. No.
It was companytended that the suit property measuring 66 feet North Southand 43 feet East West in Survey No.
1459 of 1973.
