T. Ravindran, J.

S.A. No. 1074 of 2013

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 335 of 1993 against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2012 made in A.S. No. 20/2010 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvannamalai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 made in O.S. No. 335 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Thiruvannamalai.

S.A. No. 1075 of 2013

Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants 1 and 3 in O.S. No. 158 of 1995 against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2012 made in A.S. No. 21/2010 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvannamalai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 made in O.S. No. 158 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Thiruvannamalai.

S.A. No. 1076 of 2013

Challenge in this second appeal is made by the 8th defendant in O.S. No. 376 of 2002 against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2012 made in A.S. No. 22/2010 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvannamalai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 made in O.S. No. 376 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Thiruvannamalai.

2. (i) O.S. No. 335 of 1993 has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction.

(ii) O.S. No. 158 of 1995 has been laid by plaintiffs for declaration, possession and accounting.

(iii) O.S. No. 376 of 2002 has been laid by the plaintiff for permanent injunction.

3. The parties are referred to in the second appeals as described by the trial court in O.S. No. 335 of 1993.

4. The first defendant is the wife of the deceased Ramabadra Udaiyar. The defendants 2 to 4 are born to Ramabadra Udaiyar and the first defendant. The 5th defendant is stated to be the second wife of the deceased Ramabadra Udaiyar and no issue is born to them. As regards the above facts, there is no dispute.

5. According to the plaintiff, she is the 3rd wife of the deceased Ramabadra Udaiyar. As regards the marital status of the plaintiff, the same is in dispute. According to the contesting defendants, no marriage took place between the plaintiff and the deceased Ramabadra Udaiyar and according to them, Ramabadra Udaiyar had kept the plaintiff as his mistress and there has been no valid marriage between them as put forth by the plaintiff. Further, according to the contesting defendants, the plaintiff married one Mottaiyan @ Govindan and she is not the wife of the deceased Ramabadra Udaiyar. The case of the plaintiff is that out of the lawful wedlock with the deceased Ramabadra Udaiyar, three daughters were born to them viz., Meenachi, Kamachi and Manimegalai. The said fact is also controverted by the contesting defendants. But, considering the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties in the matter, it could be seen that the marital status of the plaintiff as such pales into insignificance, as the plaintiff claims title to the suit properties under the Will executed by Ramabadra Udaiyar dated 20.06.1983, which has been marked as Ex.A36.

6. The bone of contention between the parties is as regards the character/ownership of the properties purchased under Exs.A1 to 7. Now, according to the plaintiff, though Exs.A1 to 7 stand in the name of the first defendant, it is her case that the same had been purchased only by the deceased Ramabadra Udaiyar out of his own funds and income benami in the name of the first defendant for his exclusives benefit and therefore, it is contended that the properties covered under Exs.A1 to 7 are the properties belonging to the deceased Ramabadra Udaiyar. Per contra, according to the contesting defendants, the properties covered under Exs.A1 to 7 are the exclusive properties of the first defendant, she having purchased the same, out of her savings and also with the aid and assistance of her father, who had sufficient means to contribute funds to her for the acquisition of the above said properties and therefore, it is contended that Ramabadra Udaiyar cannot lay and did not