Will in favour of an invalid adopted son nevertheless operative.

SWAMIKKANNU

The second plaintiff Mariammal in O. S. No. 108 of 1974, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, is the appellant herein. The suit was filed by one Nagammal for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 1/6th share in all the suit properties which included both immovables and movables. Her daughter, Mariammal, was the third defendant. She is her only heir. Pending suit Nagammal died and therefore, the third defendant transposed herself as the second plaintiff as per order of the trial Court and has claimed half share in all the suit properties and for partition of the same.

2. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is as follows:- One Chinnathambia Pillai had three wives, of whom first wife had predeceased him and the original plaintiff Nagammal and the first defendant Govindammal are respectively his second and third wives. Kanagambujam, the second defendant, is the daughter of the first defendant. She died pending the suit and her legal representatives are defendants 4 to 7. The fourth defendant has also made some claim in respect of the suit properties independently and therefore, he has also been impleaded as the fourth defendant and now he also represents as a legal representative to the deceased second defendant. The entire suit properties both movables and immovables originally belonged to Chinnathambia Pillai. He died intestate on 23-1-1974 and as per law, the deceased first plaintiff Nagammal was entitled to 1/6th share and she demanded from defendants 1 to 3 for a peaceful partition but as defendants 1 and 2 did not accede to her demand, she had instituted the suit.

3. The third defendant, who was transposed as the second plaintiff on the death of the first plaintiff, filed a separate written statement contending that the plaintiff's case was not true, but however, she would claim partition of her 1/3rd share. She had not paid any court-fee thereon. After the death of Nagammal, the third defendant got herself transposed as the second plaintiff and claimed half share in the entire suit properties.

4. The first defendant Govindammal both in her original written statement as well as in the additional written statement inter alia contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of partition prayed for, that very many particulars have been suppressed in the plaint and the action has been laid falsely. The allegation that Chinnathambia Pillai died intestate is false. On the other hand, he left a 'Will' dated 14-12-1958 bequeathing all his properties to all his heirs and each heir has now been in separate possession and enjoyment of the bequeathed properties. He has also settled some of his properties in favour of his grand-daughters, viz. defendants 5 and 6 and each of them has also been in separate possession and enjoyment of those properties. The fourth defendant Rajendran who is his only grand-son through the second defendant is his adopted son and it is he who has performed his obsequies. He has also been given very many properties under the Will as a residuary legatee. In the plaint exaggerated value has been given for all the suit properties and in fact, the plaintiff has given fictitious outstandings running to several thousands of rupees; but the cash on hand on the date of death of Chinnathambia Pillai was not more than Rs. 2,000/-.

5. The deceased second defendant Kanakambujam in her written statement had stated that the fourth defendant was taken in adoption by her father, deceased Chinnathambia Pillal that he had executed a settlement deed dated 31-5-1959 whereby she had been given suit items 43, 44, 63, 64, 65, 84 and 85 in the plaint A schedule that item No. 66 of plaint A schedule had been purchased by her under a sale deed dated 9-7-1970 and items 1 and 2 had been jointly purchased by her and her father, Chinnathambia Pillai.

6. The fourth defendant Rajendran has inter alia contended in his original and additional written statements that he is the adop