Upon the death of the son, the defendant succeeded to his interest in the suit properties, becoming the full owner. The defendant's remarriage did not disqualify her from holding the family property.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.195/2015 challenging the concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts that the plaintiff is not entitled to half share in the suit properties and therefore he is not entitled to perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial court.

3. The plaintiff and defendant were husband and wife. The plaintiff and defendant filed M.C.No.25/2011 before the Senior Civil Judge, Virajpet under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is stated that contemporaneously, mother of the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.55/2011 against her sons, daughter in law and grand son for partition of her share in the family properties and for maintenance. The said suit was compromised before the Lok Adalath and the suit properties were allotted to the defendant towards her share and for the share of her son A.S.Vipin Uthappa. In view of the compromise entered into the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant was dissolved by order dtd. 27/6/2011. The custody of the minor child was delivered to the defendant. Later the minor son of the defendant expired. The plaintiff alleged that he came to know that the defendant was attempting to alienate the suit property and therefore filed the present suit claiming his half share in the properties and for perpetual injunction.

4. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that the suit properties were allotted towards the share of the defendant and her minor son. She also admitted that she had undertaken to maintain her son out of the income generated from the suit property and that she would not sell the same until the minor attained the age of majority. She claimed that her son expired and therefore she is entitled to use the suit properties as she desired. She denied the allegation of the plaintiff that she had remarried and that she was attempting to alienate the suit properties. Based on the rival contentions the Trial Court framed the following issues;

i. "Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds?

ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has remarried on Mr.Puliyanda Devaiah?

iii. Whether the defendant proves that what share the plaintiff had allotted to her and her deceased son Vipin Uthappa in compromise decree in O.S.No.55/11 are her exclusive properties?

iv. What order or Decree? "

5. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The GPA holder of the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and marked document as per Ex.D.1.

6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the suit property was jointly allotted to the defendant and her son, therefore, the defendant had half share in the suit property, while her son owned the remaining half. It held that since the son of defendant had expired, his interest in the property devolved upon the defendant, being the class-I legal heir under Sec. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It therefore held that the defendant had succeeded to the share of her son and became the full owner of the suit properties. It further held that assuming that the defendant had remarried, that was not a disqualification for her to hold the property belonging to the family which was allotted to her share. Thus the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

7. An appeal preferred there from by the plaintiff before the First Appellate court also met the same fate. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decrees, present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the purpose of allotting the suit properties at the Lok Adalath was to ensure the maintenance of the minor son and was definitely not with an intention to permit the defendant to encumber it. Learned counsel submitted that since the son of the plaintiff had expired, the defendant had no subsisti