The judgment establishes the rights of widows under the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937, and clarifies the application of Hindu Law in property disputes.

The unsuccessful defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.No.34 of 1987 on the file of the Sub-Court, Vriddhachalam are the appellants in the above appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The plaint C schedule properties belonged to one Muthukaruppa Servai; Muthukaruppa Servais only son was Subburaya Servai and Subburaya Servais only son was Ayyakannu Servai; Ayyakannu Servais wife was Angammal; Ayyakannu Servai and Angammal had two sons namely Murugan and Duraisamy and two daughters namely the defendants 1 and 2; the plaintiff is the wife of Duraisamy; the third defendant is the daughter of the first defendant; Muthukaruppa Servai, Subburaya Servai and Ayyakannu Servai died intestate prior to 1937; Murugan died unmarried and intestate in the year 1954; Duraisamy husband of the plaintiff also died intestate in the year 1952; Since the plaint C schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Ayyakannu Servai, after his death the same devolved upon his sons Murugan and Duraisamy and both of them were entitled to ½ share each; On the death of Duraisamy his wife as sole heir succeeded to his ½ share as per Hindu Law; since Murugan died intestate and issueless in 1954 his mother Angammal succeeded to his ½ share as per Hindu Law; thus the plaintiff and Angammal became entitled to ½ share in the plaint C schedule properties.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on the death of Duraisamy, the plaintiff and Angammal were in joint possession and enjoyment of the C schedule properties; in 1959 due to difference of opinion both of them as per the advice of the panchayatdars divided the properties and as per the decision of the panchayatdars A schedule properties were allotted to the plaintiff and B schedule properties were allotted to Angammal; from then on both of them were enjoying the said properties by paying kist separately; the plaintiff was paying kist for the properties allotted to her and she continued to be in possession; after the said arrangement in 1959 the plaintiff and Angammal are entitled to their respective shares. Angammal has no independent right over the C schedule properties and even if she claims any such right it is untenable; Angammal died in 1982; after her death her daughter namely the defendants 1 & 2 are entitled to her ½ share; thus the plaintiff is entitled to ½ share and defendants 1 & 2 together are entitled to ½ share in the C schedule properties. While so, in July 1985, since the defendants 1 & 2 attempted to alienate Item No.3 of the A schedule property which was allotted to the plaintiff, the plaintiff caused a legal notice dated 05.07.1985 to the defendants 1 to 3. On receipt of the legal notice, the defendants 1 to 3 sent a reply notice dated 23.07.1985 contending the averments as false. In the said reply notice the defendants 1 to 3 contended that items 4,5 & 6 of A schedule properties and items 4 to 7 of B schedule properties belonged absolutely to Periyasamy Servai husband of the 1st defendant. The rest of the properties are the separate properties of Angammal. Neither Ayyakannu Servai nor Muthukaruppa Servai had any right in the properties. Angammal executed a settlement deed on 02.05.1960 in favour of the defendants 1,4 and the 2nd defendant. Angammal and defendants 1 & 2 have jointly executed a settlement deed dated 18.08.1979 in favour of the third defendant. The settlement deeds mentioned in the reply notice have not come into force and were not acted upon and the settlees under the settlement deeds were not in possession of the properties. Since the suit properties are ancestral properties of Ayyakannu Servai and as the plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in it and Angammal has no right to execute the settlement deed in respect of the plaintiff share and as such the settlement deeds in so far as the share of the plaintiff is concerned are void and not binding on the plaintiff.

5