Madras High Court
Pachiammal vs N.V.Panchaligam
Author: P.Rajamanickam
Bench: P.Rajamanickam
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 09.08.2018 Delivered on: 25.01.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
S.A.No.1667 of 2000
1.Pachiammal
2.Bagyam
3.Minor Sathish
rep.by his next friend
guardian mother Bagyam. ... appellants
Vs.
1.N.V.Panchaligam
2.T.S.Chinnappa Gounder ...Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge,
Coimbatore dated 30.11.1999 in A.S.No.138 of 1999 confirming the
Judgment and decree of the learned First Additional District Munsif,
Coimbatore dated 06.04.1999 in O.S.No.838 of 1996.
For Appellants : Mr.N.E.A.Dinesh
For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Ms.P.Veena Suresh
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, http://www.judis.nic.in 2 Coimbatore, in A.S.No.138 of 1999 dated 30.11.1999, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, in O.S.No.838 of 1996 dated 06.04.1999.
2. The appellants herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.634 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Judge, Coimbatore, for delivery of possession of the suit properties and for mesne profits directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.8,600/- per annum from the date of the suit, till the date of delivery of possession. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore and re- numbered as O.S.No.838 of 1996. The learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, by the judgment dated 06.04.1999, had dismissed the said suit without costs.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs had filed an appeal in A.S.No.138 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore by the judgment dated 30.11.1999, had dismissed the said appeal without costs and thereby, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs had filed the present second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as described before the trial Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
4. The averments made in the plaint are in brief as follows:
(a) The properties described in schedules A, B, and C in the plaint originally belonged to one Chinnathambi Gounder, the father of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff's father-in-law and great grand father of the third plaintiff. The said Chinnathambi Gounder, executed a settlement deed, at the instance of Devakkal's parents dated 10.09.1934 before the marriage of the said Devakkal with the said Chinnathambi Gounder. Through the said settlement deed, the said Chinnathambi Gounder bequeathed the suit properties to the said Devakkal for the life time and thereafter to her children through him. In pursuance of the said settlement, the said Devakkal took possession of the suit properties and was in enjoyment of the same, till her death on 11.02.1990. After the said settlement, there was a partition between the said Chinnathambi Gounder and his son Vellingiri Gounder, who is none other than the father of the first defendant and father-in-law of the second plaintiff. Even after the partition, the said Vellingiri Gounder gave endless troubles to his aged father Chinnathambi Gounder and schemed to grab the remaining property which were in his possession. Therefore, late Chinnathambi Gounder wanted to make suitable arrangements with respect to the properties covered under the settlement deed after the life time of the said Devakkal. The said Chinnathambi Gounder executed a registered http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Will dated 20.10.1948 and thereby bequeathed the suit properties, after the life time of Devakkal, to his only daughter, the first plaintiff and to his son's son born through his son's second wife viz., N.V.Natarajan absolutely. The said N.V.Natarajan died leaving behind him, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as his only legal heirs. Hence, the plaintiffs alone are entitled to succeed the suit properties absolutely, after the life time of Devakkal.
(b) The said Devakkal expired on 11.02.1990 and hence as per the registered Will dated 20.10.1948 the plaintiffs became entitled to the suit properties. Taking advantage of the fact, that the plaintiffs are living away from the suit properties, the first defendant unlawfully trespassed into the suit properties, in order to grab the same for himself. With the said idea, the first defendant has set up the second defendant to help him in his unlawful attempts to get the property and make him to claim certain rights in the property described under Schedule 'A'.The second defendant is colluding with the first defendant and acting according to the whims and fancies of the first defendant in order to knock out the suit properties for a low price, as he has got lands adjacent to the suit property. Similarly, the first defendant trespassed in to the suit 'B' schedule property and making unlawful claim. Further, he has occupied the suit 'C' Schedule property by http://www.judis.nic.in 5 breaking open the locks and negotiating to dispose of the same. He is not entitled to do so and he has no right, title or interest in the aforesaid properties as the possession is unlawful and he is liable to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs. The defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,600/- per annum for their use and occupation of the suit properties. The plaintiffs approached the first defendant and demanded for delivery of possession of the suit properties, but he refused to deliver possession and hence, the plaintiffs have filed the above suit for delivery of possession and for mesne properties.
5. The averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant, in brief, are as follows:-
(a) The late Devathal, the wife of Chinnathambi Gounder is the last holder of the estate of the said Chinnathambi Gounder. The said Devathal bequeathed her properties to the first defendant, the grandson of the said Chinnathambi Gounder and Devathal, on 20.01.1990 under a registered Will. The said Devathal was in possession and enjoyment of the properties till her death, as per the settlement deed dated 10.09.1934. The plaintiffs claim right over the suit properties by virtue of the Will dated 20.10.1948. The said Will executed on 20.10.1948 is against law and it is not binding upon the http://www.judis.nic.in 6 first defendant. The plaintiffs have played fraud and created the Will dated 20.10.1948. The said Will dated 20.10.1948 is void. As per the Will dated 20.01.1990, the first defendant is the Successor- in-title to the deceased Devathal. Further, the settlement deed dated 10.09.1934 itself is void since survivorship cannot be decided through settlement deed. After the death of the late Chinnathambi Gounder, the said Devathal was the sole legal heir and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till her death and executed a registered Will dated 20.01.1990 in favour of the first defendant.
(b) The second defendant was a tenant under the said Devathal and she terminated the tenancy and took possession of the leased property from the second defendant. Since the second defendant was sent out of the leased property, now, after the death of Devathal, the second defendant to wreck his vengeance, has joined hands with the plaintiffs. Only at the instigation of the second defendant, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit. The second defendant is an un-necessary party to the suit and hence, the suit is bad for misjoinder of party.
(c) In addition to the aforesaid facts, the deceased Devathal was entitled to the suit property by virtue of succession under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act of 1937 and Hindu Succession Act http://www.judis.nic.in 7 1956. On this account also, the first defendant is the legal heir of the deceased Devathal. The first defendant is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the above suit.
6. Though the second defendant initially appeared before the trial Court and filed written statement, but subsequently he remained absent and was set exparte and hence, the averments made in the written statement filed by him, are not stated in this judgment.
7. The learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, based on the averments made in the plaint and the written statement filed by the first defendant, framed necessary issues and tried the suit. During trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined as PW1 and they also examined one more witness as PW2. They have marked Ex.A1 to Exs.A5 as exhibits. On the side of the first defendant, the first defendant examined himself as DW1 and also examined one more witness as DW2. The first defendant has marked Ex.B1 to Exs.B30 as exhibits.
8. The learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, after considering the materials placed before him, found that since the first http://www.judis.nic.in 8 defendant denied the right of the plaintiffs over the suit properties, without seeking relief for declaration of title, the plaintiffs cannot maintain suit for delivery of possession alone. He further found that by virtue of the Will dated 20.10.1948, the suit properties were given to the said Devathal as her life interest and after commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the said Devathal became absolute owner of the suit properties. He further found that since the said Devathal became an absolute owner of the suit properties, she is entitled to execute the Will dated 20.01.1990 in favour of the first defendant and by virtue of the said Will, the first defendant became an absolute owner of the suit properties and hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of delivery of possession. Accordingly, he dismissed the said suit.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal in A.S.No.138 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Principal District Judge, has dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal.
10. This Court, at that time of admitting the second appeal, has http://www.judis.nic.in 9 formulated the following substantial questions of law:-
“ 1.Whether the Courts below are correct in applying Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, particularly when Devathal-the third wife has no interest in the property as on the date of deed dated 10.09.1934 and her source of right is the deed dated 10.09.1934, which conferred on her a restricted estate and consequently Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act only applies?
2. When Devathal was not the wife of Chinnathambi Gouner as on the date of execution of the deed dated 10.09.1934 and no material was placed to show that the suit property was given in realisation, confirmation or in declaration of any pre-existing right and as such the restricted right given under the deed cannot be enlarged into an absolute estate whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the right of Devathal are governed by Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act?
3. When the Will alleged to have been executed by Devathal in favour of the first defendant has not been proved in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act whether the Courts below are correct in upholding the claim of the first defendant under the said alleged Will?” http://www.judis.nic.in 10
11. Heard, Mr.N.E.A.Dinesh, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, assisted by Ms.P.Veena Suresh.
12. Question Nos.1 to 3:-
The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Courts below have failed to see that at the time of execution of the settlement deed dated 10.09.1934 by Chinnathambi Gounder, in favour of the Devathal, she was not the wife of Chinnathambi Gounder and as such she had no pre-existing right in the suit properties. He further submitted that the Courts below failed to see that the suit property continued to be held by Chinnathambi Gounder alone as the owner and he was exercising the power by executing the Will dated 20.10.1948 bequeathing the suit property in favour of the first plaintiff and N.V.Natarajan, who is the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. He further submitted that the Courts below failed to see that no absolute right was derived by the said Devathal and therefore, any alienation made by her is in contravention of the settlement deed dated 10.09.1934 and not binding on Chinnathambi Gounder. He further submitted that the Courts below failed to see that in any event, the Will said to have been executed by Devathal in favour of the first http://www.judis.nic.in 11 defendant has not been proved in a manner known to law and therefore, he prayed to allow the second appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.
13. Per contra, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent has submitted that since the suit properties were given to the said Devathal in lieu of maintenance, in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the said Devathal became an absolute owner of the suit properties. He further submitted that even assuming as per the settlement deed dated 10.09.1934, only life interest was given to the said Devathal, de hors the said document, she being wife of the said Chinnathambi Gounder, she is entitled to right of maintenance over her husband's property. He further submitted that since the said Devathal was in possession of the suit properties, on the date of commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in view of Section 14(1) of the said Act, she became an absolute owner of the suit properties and hence, the Will executed by her in favour of the first defendant dated 20.01.1990 is a valid document. He further submitted that after executing the settlement deed dated 10.09.1934, the said Chinnathambi Gounder had no right to execute (Ex.A5) Will dated 20.10.1948. He further submitted that the Courts below taking into consideration of all the aforesaid facts http://www.judis.nic.in 12 held that the said Devathal was the absolute owner of the suit properties and she was entitled to execute Ex.B30 Will infavour of the first defendant and the said Will is valid and in the said concurrent factual findings, this Court cannot interfere and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the second appeal.
14. The learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent/first defendant in support of the aforesaid contention, relied upon the decision in V.Tulsamma Vs. Sesha Reddy, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1944.
15. It is an admitted fact that the suit properties originally belonged to one Chinnathambi Gounder and he had executed a gift settlement deed (Ex.A1) dated 10.09.1934 in favour of one Devammal in respect of the suit properties. She has been referred to as Devakkal by the plaintiffs and Devathal by the first defendant. It is also an admitted fact that at the time of execution of the said settlement deed, the said Devammal was not married to the said Chinnathambi Gounder. In the said settlement deed itself, it is stated that the said Chinnathambi Gounder asked the parents of the said Devammal to give her in marriage to him and at that time, they made a request to give some properties as security and accordingly, he executed the said http://www.judis.nic.in 13 settlement deed. It is also stated in the said document that she can enjoy the properties without alienating the same and after her life time, the said properties should go to her legal heirs and in case she died without any issues, the properties should come back to him and his legal heirs. After the said settlement deed, the said Chinnathambi Gounder got married the said Devammal as third wife. Subsequently, the said Chinnathambi Gounder executed a registered Will dated 20.10.1948 and the said Will has been marked as Ex.A5.
16. In Ex.A5 Will, the said Chinnathambi Gounder had mentioned the names of all four wives, viz., 1) Kuzhandaiammal, 2) Palaniammal, 3) Devakkal, 4) Valliyammal. In the said Will he had stated that after his life time and also the life time of the third wife Devakkal, the suit properties should go to Pachaiyammal (First plaintiff) and Natarajan @ Periyagounder and they can enjoy the suit properties absolutely. The first plaintiff is the wife and the second plaintiff is the son of the said Natarajan @ Periyagounder. It is seen from Ex.A3, (Death Certificate) that the said Devathal died on 21.02.1990.
17. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of Chinnathambi Gounder and Devathal, Ex.A5 Will came into force and by virtue of the http://www.judis.nic.in 14 said Will, the first plaintiff and Natarajan @ Periyagounder are entitled to get the suit properties and since the said Natarajan @ Periyagounder died, his wife and son viz., the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to get his share in the suit properties. Their further case is that the first defendant, after the death of the said Devathal, taking advantage that they are living away from the suit properties, the first defendant trespassed into the suit properties with a view to grab the same and hence, he is bound to deliver vacant possession of the suit properties.
18. The case of the first defendant is that the said Devathal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, till her death, as per the Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 10.09.1934 and after commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as per Section 14(1) of the said Act, the said Devammal @ Devathal became an absolute owner of the suit properties. His further case is that the said Devammal @ Devathal had executed a registered Will dated 20.01.1990 (Ex.B30) in favour of him and after death of the said Devammal @ Devathal, the said Will came into force and he became absolute owner of the suit properties and hence, he took possession of the suit properties after the death of the said Devammal and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any right over the suit http://www.judis.nic.in 15 properties.
19. Admittedly, at the time of execution of Ex.A1 settlement deed, the said Devammal was not married to Chinnathambi Gounder. Only after execution of the said settlement deed, they got married. In the said document itself, it is stated that since the parents of the said Devammal insisted to give some properties as security, for giving her in marriage, he had executed the said document. For proper appreciation, the relevant portion of the said document is extracted hereunder:-
“..... bghd;ndf; ft[z;lh; Fkhuj;jp njtk;khSf;F nkw;go jhYf;fh eurpgu[ j;jpypUf;Fk; $hjp Foj;jdk; bghpahf;ft[z;lh; Fkhuh; rpdd ; j;jk;gpf; ft[z;lh; vGjp itf;Fk; brl;oy;bkz;L gj;jpuk; ehd; cd;id fy;ahzk; bra;J bfhs;s ntz;Lk; vd;W cd; bgw;nwhh;fis ehd; nfl;ljpy; nkw;go ahh;fs; cdf;F Xh;
Mjut[ bra;J itf;f ntz;Lbkd;W brhd;dij ehd;
xg;gf[ ;bfhz;lgoahy; vdf;F Rahh;$pjkha; fpuaghj;jpag;gl;L vd; mDgt RthjPdj;jpypUf;fpw ,jdoapy; fhdqk; U:/2.000-/ (,uz;lhapuk; U:gha;) bkhj;jKs;s g{kp tPLtifwhit ehsJ njjpapy; cdf;F brl;oy;bkz;lhff; bfhLj;J g{kp tPL tifwhita[k; ehsJ njjpapy; cd; RthjPdk; bra;J bfhLj;jpUf;fpnwdh Mifahy; ,jdoapy; fhdqk; g{kp tPL tifwhit eP vt;tpj guhjPd';fSk; bra;ahky; mJfspd; tUk; goiaf; bfhz;L kl;Lk; cd; $Ptjpirtiuapy; eP mDgtpj;J http://www.judis.nic.in 16 tuntz;oaJ cd; $Ptjpirf;Fg; gpwF cd;Dila re;jjpfspypUe;jhy; mth;fs; ,jdoapy; fdqk; tPL tifwhit jhdhjp tpff; pua';fSf;F nahf;fpakha; rh;tRje;juj;Jld; Mz;L mDgtpjJ ; f; bfhs;s ntz;oaJ ePahbjhU re;jjpfSkpy;yhky;; $Ptjpiraile;Jtpl;lhy; mg;nghJ ,jdoapy; fhdqk; g{kp tPL tifwh vdf;Fk; vd; thh;RfSf;Fk; nruj;jf;fJ/.....”
20. A plain reading of the aforesaid recitals would show that the suit properties were given to the said Devammal only as a security for getting married to the said Chinnathambi Gounder. So, it is clear that at the time of execution of the said document, Devammal had no pre- existing right in the said properties. Only for the first time, through the said document, she got right over the suit properties.
21. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which reads thus:-
“14.Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.
(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Explanation:- In this sub-section, " property "
includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any pro- perty acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.”
22. In V.Tulsamma Vs. Sesha Reddy, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1944, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that sub Section (2) of section 14 is merely a Proviso to sub section (1) of Section 14, and has to be interpreted as a Proviso and not in a manner, so as to destroy the effect of the main provision. Further it was held that so far as sub section (2) of Section 14 is concerned, it applies to instruments, decrees, awards and gifts etc., which created independent and new http://www.judis.nic.in 18 titles in favour of the females for the first time. In this case, as already pointed out, at the time of execution of Ex.A1 settlement deed, there was no marriage between Chinnathambi Gounder and Devammal and as such there was no pre-existing right of maintenance for the said Devammal. Therefore, after commencement of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the limited right which was conferred under Ex.A1 settlement deed will not be enlarged as absolute right to the said Devammal.
23. It is also to be pointed out that under Ex.A1 settlement deed, the said Chinnathambi Gounder settled the suit properties infavour of Devammal, by giving life interest to her and after her death, if she had issues the properties should go to her legal heirs or otherwise the properties should come back to him and his legal heirs. She did not die during the life time of Chinnathambi Gounder. He died on 10.12.1948, whereas Devammal died on 21.02.1990. If the said Devammal died without issues before the death of Chinnathambi Gounder, then only as per Ex.A1 settlement deed, the properties will go to him. But in this case, he predeceased the said Devammal. Under the said circumstances, the said Chinnathambi Gounder would not have any right to execute Ex.A5 Will. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right through Ex.A5 Will.
http://www.judis.nic.in 19
24. As already stated that since there was no pre-existing rights in the suit properties at the time of execution of Ex.A1 settlement deed, the properties acquired by the said Devammal through the said Ex.A1 settlement deed will not be enlarged as her absolute property after the commencement of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, Section 3 of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 gave a Hindu widow the same interest in the property which her husband had at the time of his death, of course, subject to the restrictions on disposition. For proper appreciation, Section 3 of the said Act is extracted hereunder:-
“3.Devolution of property:(1) When a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law dies intestate leaving any property, and when a Hindu governed by any other school of Hindu law or by customary law dies intestate leaving separate property, his widow, or if there is more than one widow all his widows together, shall, subject to the provisions of sub section (3), be entitled in respect of property in respect of which he dies intestate to the same share as a son;
Provided that the widow of a predeceased son shall apply mutatis mutandis to the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son.
http://www.judis.nic.in 20 (2) When a Hindu governed by any School of Hindu law other than the Dayabhaga School or by customary law dies having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, his widow shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), have in the property the same interest as he himself had.
(3) Any interest devolving on a Hindu widow under the provisions of this section shall be the limited interest known as a Hindu Women's estate, provided however, that she shall have the same right of claiming partition as a male owner.
(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to an estate which by a customary or other rule of succession or by the terms of the grant applicable thereto descends on a single heir or to any property to which the Indian Succession Act, 1925, applies.”
25. By virtue of Section 3 of the said Act, after the death of Chinnathambi Gounder, his widow Devammal acquired the property with limited interest. After the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by virtue of Section 14(1) of the said Act, the limited interest acquired by the said Devammal became her absolute property. So, she can dispose of the suit properties, as she likes. http://www.judis.nic.in 21
26. According to the first defendant, the said Devammal, when she was in sound and disposing state of mind, executed Ex.B30 Will in favour of him on 20.01.1990 and after her death, the said Will came into force and he took possession of the suit properties and he is enjoying the same as an absolute owner of the suit properties. In order to prove the execution of the said Will, he has examined one of the attestors as DW2. DW2 has deposed in his evidence that on 20.01.1990, the said Devakkal had executed Ex.B30 Will and in that Will, one Arumugam signed as witness No.1 and he signed as witness No.2. He has stated that in their presence that the said Devakkal has signed and also put her thumb impression. The first plaintiff while examining herself as PW1 has admitted in her cross examination that the first defendant took possession of the suit property as per the Will executed by the said Devakkal infavour of the first defendant. So, it is clear that the first plaintiff herself has admitted that the said Devakkal had executed the Will infavour of the first defendant and only in pursuance of the said Will, he is in possession of the said property. Therefore, it is clear that the said Devakkal had executed Ex.B30 Will infavour of the first defendant and after the death of the said Devakkal, the said Ex.B30 Will came into force and in pursuance of the said Will, the first defendant took possession of the suit property and he is enjoying the same.
http://www.judis.nic.in 22
27. As already pointed out that since there was no pre-existing right, at the time of execution of Ex.A1 settlement deed, the limited right which was given under Ex.A1 settlement will not enlarge as an absolute right by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the said Devakkal acquired the properties after the death of Chinnathambi Gounder as widow, by virtue of Section 3 of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, she got limited right in her husband's property. The said limited right enlarged into an absolute right by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and hence, she can dispose of the property as she likes. Accordingly, she executed Ex.B30 Will in favour of the first defendant and he is in possession of the suit properties only as per the said will and therefore, the first defendant is not bound to deliver vacant possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below are confirmed though on different grounds. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants/plaintiffs.
28. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
25.01.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No dna http://www.judis.nic.in 23 To
1.The Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.
2.The First Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
http://www.judis.nic.in 24 P.RAJAMANICKAM, J.
dna Pre-Delivery Order in S.A.No.1667 of 2000 25.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in