The facts of the case are not now in dispute as they have been settled by concurrent findings of the Courts below. The first appellant in this second appeal purchased through his guardian, the second defendant, a house which is the subject-matter of the suit under a sale deed of nth September, 1943, from Alamelu, the widow of one Muthuvelu. The plaintiff is a rival claimant to the same house under a purchase from the brother of Muthuvelu, one Sabapathi Padayachi. It has now been found by the Courts below that Sabapathi and Muthuvelu were undivided brothers and that on the death of Muthuvelu on 17th August, 1943, the property in the suit would have in the usual course devolved on Sabapathi but for the claim of the defendants under the sale deed executed by Alamelu in 1943 in their favour. The right is now confined to the right of the widow under section 3(2) of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937. It has also been found by the Courts below that at the time of the death of her husband, Alamelu was leading an unchaste life and was living in adultery with a person at Kumbakonam. The claim of the defendants based on the Act was negatived by the Courts below on the ground that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document