Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. It was further pleaded by the first defendant that the properties were purchased in the name of his concubine Angammal benami for his benefit as the plaintiff apprehended that his brothers who remained undivided, may claim share in his properties. It was further pleaded by the first defendant that he had purchased the properties in the name of his wife Saradambal which was later disposed of for family expenses. The first defendant pleaded that the plaintiff's mother Angammal is not his legally wedded wife. Angammal was admittedly married to one Madhava Mudaliar and she was living with him till his death. After the death of Madhava Mudaliar Angammal moved to the village Kadapanandal and lived with her mother in Kadapanandal.

19. The trial court held that Angammal the second defendant is the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff Rajavelu and that Chandrasekaran the first defendant is the legitimate son of the plaintiff Rajavelu Udayar. The trial court further held that the 4th item is the separate property of Angammal and it has not been purchased benami. It was further held that the plaintiff had not established his claim of self acquisition and therefore his claim of injunction was turned down.

20. The trial court also found that all the properties are joint family properties and that Chandrasekaran is the legitimate son of Rajavelu Udayar and that the children of the Rajavelu Udayar and Angammal will be entitled to 1/5th share and Angammal will also be entitled to 1/ 5th share on the demise of her son Arangesan. The trial court granted a decree for partition of 1/5th share as against the 1/4th share claimed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 461 of 1981 and granted a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession while it had dismissed O.S.No. 481 of 1981.

31. The learned Counsel for the appellant sought to rely upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Surjit Kaur v. Garija Singh 1994 S.C. 135, Shantram v. Dagubai , P.E.K. Kalliani Amma v. K. Devi , Perumal Gounder v. Pachaiyappan , Ramayammal v. Muthammal (1914)2 M.L.J. 34, in support of his contention that the marriage between Rajavelu Udayar and Angammal is void as according to the learned Counsel for the marriage took place after the commencement of the Tamil Nadu VI of 1949.

32. On the evidence the two courts below have held that the marriage between (sic) Udayar and Angammal was prior to the commencement of the Act and therefore it is valid. That being a factual finding, the various judgments referred to by the counsel for the appellant is not necessary to refer to the above pronouncements in detail. It would be sufficient to hold that the marriage between Rajavelu Udayar and Angammal is valid as it had been performed prior to the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Act VI of 1949 and the two courts below have chosen to accept the oral evidence with respect to the celebration of marriage. Sitting in second appeal this Court is not inclined to interfere with the'said findings. As already pointed out the conduct of the parties, acceptance of the status of Angammal and Chandrasekaran by all the family members as well as by the Society as observed by the first appellate court, definitely advances the claim of Chandrasekaran and Angammal respectively being the legitimate son born out of the lawfully wedlock between Rajavelu and Angammal.

33. The first question of law has to be answered against the appellant as the marriage between Angammal and the plaintiff Rajavelu Udayar is valid as it was conducted prior to the Tamil Nadu Act VI of 1949. There is no doubt that Angammal previously married Madhava Mudaliar who died long ago and after the death of Madhava Mudaliar Rajavelu Udayar married Angammal as his second wife prior to commencement of Tamil Nadu Act VI of 1949.

34. It is not the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Rajavelu Udayar could not lawfully marry Angammal, a widow on the date of his second marriage. The first question of law has to be answered against the appellant as it has been already found that Angammal a widow had married Rajavelu Udayar prior to the commencement of Madras (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949 and the marriage has been proved by letting in oral and documentary evidence.