JUDGMENT: Defendants 2 to 6 are the appellants herein aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S. No.347 of 1982 filed by respondents 1 to 4. The fifth respondent was the first defendant in the suit.

2. According to the averments in the plaint, the suit schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of one Samivel, who was the husband of the first appellant and respondent and father of appellants 2 to 5 and respondents 2 to 5 Samivel had a wife called Perumal Ammal, who is now deceased is the mother of the fifth respondent herein. The first appellant married Samivel after the death of Perumal Ammal and appellants 2 to 5 were born to them. The first respondent was married to Samivel on 9.6.1969, respondents 2 to 4 were born to them. The first appellant and the first respondent are sisters. Samivel was working in Madura Coats and the first respondent was working as a Government School teacher. Samivel died intestate. The appellants are residing in item No.1 of the suit property. 4 tenants are residing in item No.2, 2 tenants in item No.3 and one tenant in item No.4. The parties are in joint possession of item No.5. After the death of Samivel, since enmity had arisen between the parties, the respondents 1 to 4 demanded partition on 11.2.1982 but the appellants were not agreeable. Item No.3 of the suit property was sold pending suit. Two fixed deposits were created by Samivel, one in the name of the first appellant and the other in the name of the second respondent. These are included as item Nos.6 and 7 of the suit property. Preliminary decree of 7/18th share in the suit property was prayed for.

3. The first appellant as the second defendant filed her written statement denying the averments contained in the plaint. A written statement was filed by the first defendant who is the fifth respondent. An additional written statement was filed by the same party praying for her share. One more written statement was filed on account of the averments made in the written statement filed by the appellants herein claiming that suit item Nos.1 and 5 were purchased from the ‘Stridhan’ of the first appellant herein.

4. In the written statement filed by the appellants, it was stated that Samivel married only twice, once to the mother of the fifth respondent herein and after her death, to the first respondent herein. The paternity of respondents 2 to 4 was denied. It was stated that the first appellant was not leading a straight life and therefore, she was sent to work as a maid in Samivel’s house. She developed a relationship with one Kalimuthu, who was in the army. Since the first appellant questioned the first respondent for not taking care of the children, the deceased samivel sent the first respondent to work for one Dr.Venkatasamy to take care of his mother. After Dr.Venkatasamy’s mother became better, the first respondent was sent to her own village. Then she took teacher’s training with the help of the deceased Samivel, who acted as a local guardian. Two years later she returned to Madurai. At that time, one Sanduran developed an association with the first respondent. The first respondent never married Samivel. The children are not children. She lived independently. The only connection Samivel had with her was in the capacity of a guardian. The first appellant came to India from Srilanka and she brought jewels and money. She got married to Samivel. The property in item No.1 was purchased with her ‘Stridhan’ and thereafter, in 1960, the super structure was put up. Item No.5 of the suit property was also purchased from jewels of the first appellant. The first respondent, taking advantage of the illiteracy of Samivel and the first appellant, alleging to be related to them, has filed the suit to grant the property belonging to the appellants and therefore, the suit should be dismissed.

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit insofar as the first respondent is concerned and passed a preliminary decree declaring the 3/9th share of respondents

Click Here to Read the rest of this document