Scope and applicability of the provisions of the code.

V. Sethuraman, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the second defendant in O.S. No. 89 of 1975 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of. Triuchi. There was one T.M. Meenakshisundaram, who died on 28th June, 1967 in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Coimbatore, when he was working there as a Revenue Divisional Officer in Erode. The first plaintiff claimed that she was married to the said Meenakshisundaram as the second wife and that her two daughters plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children born out of the said wedlock. The first defendant is the first wife of the said Meenakshisundaram and the second defendant is their son. It may be mentioned here that the second defendant is an advocate by profession practicing in Tiruchirapalli.

2. The first defendant gave birth to the second defendant in or about 1941, and by about 1943, she became mentally and physically afflicted with the result that there could be no conjugal life between Meenakshisundaram and the first defendant. She went over to her parent's place in Dindigul thereafter.

3. Meenakshisundaram was serving as a Government employee in the Revenue Department in several places. According to the first plaintiff her marriage with Meenakshisundaram took place at Srirangam in accordance with Hindu rites and custom of the community on 30th May, 1948. There was said to have been a Parisam preceding this marriage on 27th May at Periakulam. The second plaintiff was born on 30th January, 1957 and the third plaintiff on 24th May, 1963 at Periakulam and Karaikkal respectively. When the third plaintiff was born, Meenakshisundaram was posted as the Administrator of Karaikkal and was functioning there.

4. On 24th September, 1956, Meenakshisundaram executed a registered maintenance deed in favour of the first defendant and in that document, it is stated that the marriage between the first plaintiff and him took place on 30th May, 1948. He got certain properties under the will of one Thayyammal. The plaint A Schedule properties were said to have been acquired by Meenakshisundaram out of his earnings and in item 5 of the A Schedule a house was built with his earnings. The B Schedule contains Bank deposits and National Saving Certificates, which are described as the exclusive assets of Meenakshisundaram. The C Schedule contains certain moveable items in which also the plaintiffs claim a share. According to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to 5/8th share in the properties described in the Schedules A to C.

5. They issued a notice prior to the filing of the suit on 11th July, 1970, demanding partition and rendition of accounts from the second defendant, who was in charge of the properties. The second defendant issued a reply on 15th July, 1970 denying the allegations about the marriage as false. The plaintiffs therefore, came forward with the suit for partition and allotment of 5/8th share in the plaint A to C Schedule properties and for accounting by the second defendant from 28th June, 1967 when Meenakshisundaram died.

6. The first defendant remained ex parte. Among defendants 3 to 23, only defendant 20 filed a written statement stating that he was a tenant in one of the suit properties and that he was willing to pay the rent to whomsoever the Court directed. According to him he was; an unnecessary party to the suit and he was not liable for costs.

7. In the written statement filed by the second defendant, who is the main contestant of the suit, he denied that there was any marriage between the first defendant and Meenakshisundaram in 1948. He denied also the allegations that plaintiffs 2 and 3 were born on the dates mentioned in the plaint out of such lawful wedlock. He disclaimed any knowledge of the maintenance deed said to have been executed on 24th September, 1956 by Meenakshisundaram and even if there was a recital in the said deed to the effect that there was a marriage in 1948 with the first plaintiff, it was, in his submission, a false one. It was also stated that even assuming tha