Mother of predeceased son is not disqualified.

All those second appeals arise out of the same suit viz. O.S.No.774 of 1979, on the file of District Munsif at Ariyalur. The relevant facts for the purpose of our case may be summarised thus:

"All the plaint items originally belonged to one Poomalai Konar who died in the year 1955. His widow Sellammal is the plaintiff in the suit, who claimed partition of 2/3rd share over the plaint items. It is the case of the plaintiff that out of her marriage with Poomalai, Saminatha Konar was born, who died in the year 1970. 1st defendant is the widow of Saminatha and 2nd defendant was a minor daughter born to them. It is further averred by the plaintiff that apart from Saminatha, Poomalai had one more daughter by name Panchavarnam. It is her case that on the death of Poomalai, she became entitled to one half of the plaint items and on the death of Saminatha over his one half share in the suit items she is entitled to l/3rd share altogether 2/3rd right in the plaint items. She demanded partition. She also alleged that defendants 1 and 2 who are the widow and daughter of Saminatha are alienating the properties, as if the properties are absolutely belonging to them only, and therefore, it is invalid to the extent of her share. She wanted to ignore the sale deeds executed by defendants 1 and 2 and to demarcate her properties separately.“

.2. Defendants 1 and 2 have filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the properties. It is their case that long before Poomalai died, the plaintiff had deserted him and in fact she was living with one Govindasamy and in that connection a daughter was born to her by name Panchavarnam, her date of birth being 10. 1947. It is further said that at the time when the plaintiff left the company of Poomalai, Ex.A-1, a document of maintenance arrangement was executed by Poomalai, gifting certain items to the plaintiff. That was the year 1946. It is also said that there are records to show that Panchavarnam is born to Govindasamy, the second husband of the plaintiff and since there was no husband and wife relationship between the plaintiff and Poomalai at the time of his death, she is not entitled to any share in his assets. In so far as the share of Saminatha is concerned, it was contended that his mother is unchaste and who left her husband and was leading an adulterous life, and she is not entitled to any share in the family assets. The claim through his son can also only be as a widow of late Poomalai, and therefore, the said claim as a sharer of the son also cannot be maintained. It was also contended by them that they have been dealing the property as absolute owners and alienees have come into possession. The suit has been filed about 25 years after Poomalai died and the claim is, therefore, barred by limitation.

3. The other defendants who are alienees also denied the right of the plaintiff and they contended that they are bona fide purchasers for value and the properties which they have purchased are not liable to be surrendered to the plaintiff.

4. On the above pleadings the trial Court marked Exs. A-1 to A-6 on the side of the plaintiff and Exs.B-1 and B-2 on the side of the defendants. The plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1 and D. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the defendants. The trial court after elaborately considering the evidence passed a preliminary decree. It held that the plaintiff is entitled to l/3rd share in the plaint items except those items which have already been alienated. It came to the conclusion that the plaintiff got married for the sec- ond time with Govindasamy or that she was living as wife of Govindasamy even during the life time of Poomalai and a daughter was born in that connection. Therefore, Poomalai night have divorced her and the plaintiff is not entiled to any share in the assets of Poomalai. But in regard to the claim of the plaintiff as legal heir of her son, the trial court came to the conclusion that neither