Page 1

JUDGMENT

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1103 OF 2004

Easwari

… Appellant

:Versus:

Parvathi & Ors.

…

Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1.

This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and order

dated July 22, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Madras in Second Appeal No.1806 of 1992. The High Court after

perusing the facts and the evidence on record by the said

judgment and order allowed the second appeal confirming the

order of the Trial Court and setting aside the order passed by the

first appellate court.

2.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2

The respondents herein (plaintiffs before the Trial Court)

filed a suit for declaration and injunction with regard to the

properties described as schedule “A” and schedule “B” properties

and the Trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs for

both the schedule properties. Assailing the said Trial Court’s

decision the appellant herein filed an appeal before the Lower

Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the “B”

schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs (respondents herein)

but reversed the decree with regard to “A” Schedule property

culminating in filing the second appeal.

3.

The plaintiffs, respondents herein, filed Original Suit No. 59

of 1985 before the District Munsif Court at Polur as the legal heirs

of deceased Ponnangatti Gounder. The disputes pertained to the

properties which were held by deceased Ponnangatti Gounder

and his first wife who pre-deceased him. Ponnangatti Gounder

acquired the suit “A” schedule property through succession from

his ancestors. The suit property mentioned as schedule “B”

property was purchased by Muniammal by registered conveyance

deed dated September 14, 1970. Both were in possession and

enjoyment of Ponnangatti Gounder and Muniammal and after

Page 3

JUDGMENT

3

their death the plaintiffs were and are in possession of the said

properties. After the death of Muniammal, it is alleged by the first

defendant and her brother, the second defendant that the said

Ponnangatti Gounder married the first defendant as a result

whereof she made a claim over the suit property.

4.

Issues were framed by the Trial Court and after assessing

the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Trial Court decreed

the suit for both “A” and “B” schedule properties in favour of the

plaintiffs. Assailing the said decree an appeal was preferred by

the present appellant before the First Appellate Court. The First

Appellate Court reversed the decree in respect of the schedule

“A” property in the suit. Assailing such judgment and decree,

second appeal was filed before the High Court by the plaintiffs.

5.

So far as the dispute, as it appears, cannot be extended with

regard to schedule “B” property which belonged to Muniammal,

since it was purchased by her on September 14, 1970 through

Ex.B-6 in respect of which the decree passed by the Trial Court

was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court, the defendant has

no claim over the same. The dispute between the parties is only

in respect of the schedule “A” property in the suit.

Page 4

JUDGMENT

4

Looking at the facts of the case, the primary question as it

appears to us, which has to be dealt with is whether the first

defendant, the appellant herein, is the second wife of the

deceased Ponnangatti Gounder and whether she is entitled to

have a share in the suit “A” schedule property.

6.

The High Court dealt with the matter at length. It is stated by

the appellant herein before the Trial Court that Muniammal died

ten years ago i.e. in 1976. It is further stated that on December

15, 1977 Ponnangatti married to the first defendant, the appellant

herein in the Devasthanam of Sri Perianayaki Saneda Kanagagiri