The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Hindu Succession Act, particularly Section 15, in determining the succession of property in the case of a female Hindu dying intestate.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the Third Additional District Judge, Madurai, dated 9.10.1990 made in A.S.No.181/1987 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court namely, the court of District Munsif, Thirumangalam, dated 18.8.1987 in O.S.No.601 of 1984, on the file of the said court. The first defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the Second Appeal.

2. One Duraisamy who is the sole plaintiff had filed the original suit on the file of the District Munsif, Thirumangalam for the relief of declaration of his title in respect of the suit properties, for recovery of possession and for recovery of mesne profits in respect of the suit properties. According to the plaint averments, the suit properties were purchased by late. Andi Thevar with the help of his own funds in the name of his wife Vanappetchi. The said Andi Thevar predeceased is wife Vanappetchi and on the death of Venappetchi 2 years prior to the filing of the suit, the said plaintiff as the sole legal heir of Vanappetchi became entitled to the suit properties. The further contention of the plaintiff was that the appellant herein/first defendant in the original suit who is the brother of the deceased Vanappetchi took away certain title deeds and tresspassed into the suit properties in the first week of January 1984 and occupied the same.

3. The suit was resisted by the appellant/first defendant contending that Vanappetchi was given in marriage to Andi Thevar at his age of 60 against her will; that after she gave birth to a female child on 17.4.1951, Vanappetchi refused to cohabit with her husband Andi Thevar and hence according to the customary practice that was prevailing in the community to which both of them belonged the marriage was dissolved by customary divorce granted by the panchayatdars and that in or about 1952 or 1953 when Andi Thevar died there was no relationship between himself and Vanappetchi as husband and wife. It was the further contention of the appellant/first defendant that the suit properties were purchased in the name of Vanappetchi for her benefit with the help of the money provided by the appellant/first defendant and his father that due to the said reason and due to the fact that the relationship of husband and wife between Andi Thevar and Vanapetchi had come to an end even before the death of Andi Thevar, the appellant/first defendant alone was the legal heir of the deceased Vanapetchi.

4. The learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam framed necessary issues and conducted trial in which four witnesses were examined and 6 documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff, whereas three witnesses were examined and 23 documents were marked on the side of the contesting defendant, the appellant/first defendant. At the conclusion of trial, after going through the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced on either side, the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam came to the conclusion that the contention of the first defendant that there was a customary divorce by which the relationship of husband and wife between Andi Thevar and Vanappetchi had been brought to an end was not substantiated by appellant/first defendant and that as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff/Duraisamy Thevar was the sole legal heir of Vanappetchi entitled to succeed to the suit properties namely the properties of Vanappetchi. Accordingly the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam allowed the suit and granted a decree for the reliefs of declaration, possession and mesne profits.

5. The said judgment and the decree of the trial court was confirmed on appeal by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Madurai, by judgment dated 9.10.1990 made in A.S.No.181/1987. In all respects the judgment and decree of the trial court were confirmed by the lower appellate court. As against the said judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, the present Second Appeal has been brought forth