The Lower Appellate Court also companyfirmed the finding of the Trial Court but modified the decree that it may be treated as preliminary decree.
Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are That an Original Suit NO.
The first defendant having murdered his father is number entitled to claim any right under Section 6 read with Sections 25 27 of the Act but as per proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act plaintiff is entitled to a decree for half share and accordingly it was granted to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff became a Class I heir under Schedule 1 of the Hindu Succession Act and she was entitled to a share in the property.
After the release of the first defendant from the prison, first defendant lived with the plaintiff for some time but after some time she was driven out of the house.
It was alleged that all the properties acquired by the Ramasami, were joint family properties and the first defendant has acquired the same by survivorship.
87/1978 was filed in the Court of the District Munsif, Melur by the plaintiff appellant herein .
Since the first defendant murdered his father, he was number entitled to succeed to the estate of his deceased father and as such the claim of the plaintiff was that she alone was entitled to all the properties left by the deceased Ramasami Konar.
The second defendant is a cultivating tenant.
The companyviction of the first defendant was companyfirmed by the High Court but the High Court recommended the Government to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.
It is alleged that the first defendant in the suit married the plaintiff appellant and both were residing as husband and wife.
Hence the present appeal.
Second defendant is already impleaded in the suit as tenant claiming under first defendant.
The first defendant was released in July, 1975.
She claimed to be the widow of the first defendant and claimed to be the owner of all the properties left by Ramasami Konar as companyarcener.
The Trial Court by Order dated 31st March, 1980 held that all the properties are joint family properties of the deceased Ramasami Konar and first defendant.
As against this it was companytended by the first defendant that the suit was number maintainable as the plaintiff is number the legal heir of Ramasami Konar.
Wife of Ramasami Konar was already divorced and married with some other person and was residing separately.
Aggrieved against this, the first defendant preferred a second appeal before the High Court.
The schedule properties are the self acquired properties of late Ramasami Konar and the first defendant was the only son of Ramasami Konar and the plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant.
This matter was taken up in appeal by defendant No.
The Lower Court also held that first defendant must be treated as number existent.
Plaintiff, therefore, prayed that she may be granted the relief of declaration as she is entitled to inherit the entire estate of the deceased Ramasami Konar.
773 of 1983 filed by the respondent 1st Defendant herein.
K. MATHUR, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Judicature at Madras whereby the learned Single Judge by his order dated 6th March, 1997 has allowed the Second Appeal No.
