The High Court has ordered that Respondent No.
109 7 9 claimed by him.
In the result, the appellants suit was dismissed in regard to the main relief claimed by her.
As to the gold belt mentioned in Sch.
The appellant laid a claim to these properties as the sole heir of her mother Rajambal who died on the 13th September, 1946.
F , were companyered.
The first point which has been urged before us by the appellant is that the High Court was in error in holding that the immovable property described in Sch.
I did number belong to the appellants mother, but to her father.
The learned trial Judge held that the appellants mother was the owner of the property described in Sch.
I had been purchased by the appellants father benami in the name of his wife.
On these pleadings, the trial Court framed six substantive issues, three of which were important.
It found that the sale deed in respect of the property was taken by the appellants father in the name of the appellants mother benami.
Exhibit B is a letter written by the appellants father to her appellants husband on the 1st August, 1944.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 10, 1956 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No.
4, the decision of the trial Court was that the appellant should recover the same from respondent No.
3 the amount claimed by him.
As regards the jewels, he found that they had never gone into the possession of respondents 1 and 2, and so, the appel lants claim in respect of the said jewels was rejected.
The High Court has held that the main property described in Sch.
The result was that with a very slight modification, the decree passed by the trial Court was companyfirmed, though on a different ground.
He pleaded that he had numberobjection to hand it over to the rightful claimant, provided the amount due to him was repaid to him.
The third respondent, Vasudeva Setty Sons, admitted that he was in possession of the gold belt described in Schedule 4, but urged that the appellants father had given it to him for purpose of sale and that a sum of Rs.
Her case was that she was entitled to these properties exclusively under sub clause i of Clause 1 of section 12 of the Mysore Hindu Law Womens Rights Act, 1933 No.
528 of 1961.
These three issues were 1 whether the appellants father or mother was the real owner of the property described in Schedules 1 and 2 2 whether the will set up by respondents 1 2 was genuine and valid in law and 3 whether the suit was number maintainable on the ground that necessary parties had number been joined by the appellant.
3 should return the said gold belt to the appellant and that the appellant was number bound to pay to Respondent No.
With that part of the case, we are number companycerned in the present appeal.
The appellant, however, succeeded before the High Court in respect of one minor point and that was in relation to her claim for the gold belt.
171 of 195152 .
A gold belt which is an item of jewellery was described by her in Schedule 4 and the same was claimed by her on the ground that it had been presented to her by her father before he died on the 20th March, 1947.
X of 1933 hereinafter called the Act .
It is against this decree that the appellant has companye to this Court by special leave.
Then on the 21st June, 1945, a letter was addressed to the Sub Division Officer, Bangalore Sub Division, Bangalore, by the appellants mother Exbt.
Having held that the appel lant had number established her title to the said property, the High Court did number think it necessary to companysider the validity of the finding of the trial Judge that the suit was bad for number joinder of necessary parties.
Schedules 1 and 2 companysist of movable and immovable properties, while Schedule 3 refers to jewels and silver ware.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Against this decision, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Mysore R.A. No.
was delivered by Gajendragadkar, J. J. R. Mudholkar J. delivered a dissenting opinion.
If you be without sorrow, you may companye out happily early.
Regarding the movable property, the trial Judge held with some variation that the items admitted by the respondents also belonged to the appellant.
Respondents 1 and 2 thus set up a title in respect of the suit properties in the appellants father.
28,000 by Mr. Gibs under which several pieces of land together with all buildings and erections standing thereon and movable property companysisting of articles of furniture and other things set out in the Schedules attached to the sale deed Exhbt.
GAJENDRAGADKAR J. This appeal arises from a suit filed by the appellant Kanakarathanammal in the Court of the IInd Additional District Judge, Bangalore O.S. No.
39 of 1947 48 in which she claimed to recover possession of the properties described in the Schedules attached to the plaint.
These findings, however, did number materially assist the appellant, because the learned Judge upheld the respondents plea that the suit was bad for number joinder of necessary parties.
In that companynection, the appellant relied on the fact that a sale deed had been executed in favour of her mother on the 1st April, 1942 for a companysideration of Rs.
Alternatively, they urged that even if the property belonged to the appellants mother, she would number be entitled to claim exclusive title to it, because by succession the said property would devolve upon the appellant and her brothers and the appellants failure to join her brothers made the suit incompetent for number joinder of necessary parties.
T. Desai, K. Jayaram and R. Ganapathy Iyer for the respondents.
It appears that respondents 1 2 had also preferred an appeal in the High Court against a part of the decree passed by the trial Judge, and the said appeal was dismissed.
The case set out in the plaint showed that according to the appellant, the properties in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 belonged exclusively to her mother and when she made a claim against the respondents in that behalf, they challenged her title.
P. Bhatt and R. Thiagarajan, for the appellant.
December, 18, 1963 The Judgment of P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. Subba Rao, K. N. Wanchoo and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ.
2 Mudaliar Sangham, by its President, as directed under the will.
171 of 1951 52.
Having found the title of the appellants mother proved, the trial Judge came to the companyclusion that the will executed by the appellants father was invalid.
Respondent No.
1 Loganatha Mudaliar alleged that on the 17th February, 1947, the father of the appellant had executed a will under which he had been appointed an executor and that as such executor, he obtained a probate under the said will, got possession of the properties and handed them over to Respondent No.
109 7 9 was due to him.
3 on her paying to him Rs.
