Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is not in dispute that the suit property and other properties were ancestral properties of one E.C. Subramania Iyer, who had two sons being E.S Dhandapani Iyer and Ranganatha Iyer.

4. It is claimed by plaintiffs that Ranganatha was employed in a bus transport company and was also having a taxi and that he married one Bagirathi as his first wife. A son by name Pichan was born to them. As his first wife was inflicted with T.B., to care for her, first plaintiff came into the household and as Ranganatha developed a liking to her, the marriage between Ranganatha and first plaintiff took place on 1.2.1933 in the house, in the presence of relatives and well-wishers and before the family deity Muruga. First plaintiff was earlier married ' in her 10th year and lost her husband even before attaining puberty. After the marriage on 1.2.1933, she lived in the house, looking after the ailing senior wife and her son Pichan, Plaintiffs 2 and 3 being the sons and fourth plaintiff the daughter, were born to them. First wife of Ranganatha died in' 1939 or 1940. Ranganatha died on 23.8.1955, leaving behind a will 'dated 1.8.1955. Plaintiffs refer to the financial difficulties experienced by Dhandapani, the elder brother of. Ranganatha and claim that a family arrangement was arrived at leading to the execution of a composition deed dated 18.4.1930 (Exhibit A.34) executed by Subramania Iyer and his two sons, in and by which, the suit property was exclusively allotted to Ranganatha and that subsequently he had been exercising full rights of ownership, by mortgaging it, leasing it out and by paying municipal dues etc., from time to time. At no point, of time, Dhandapani ever exercised any right or interest ever the suit property ever since 1930. After the death of Bagirathi, Dhandapani picked up quarrels with Ranganatha and left the suit, house along with his father, who later died in 1943. Pichan was under the care of first plaintiff and he died in 1955. As Ranganatha was in strained circumtances, on 4.3.1951, he had usufrutuarily mortgaged the suit property to one Meenakshi Ammal, the wife of one S. Krishnasami Iyer, a close relation. When first plaintiff wanted to register the will executed by Ranganatha bequeathing the suit property to the plaintiffs. Dhandapani filed a suit in O.S. No. 279 of 1958, District Munsif's Court, Erode, praying for a declaration that the will was not true, valid and binding upon him. It was decreed on 19.6.1959 and A.S. No. 30 of 1960 was filed as against it and it was allowed on 5.9.1960. Dhandapani filed S.A. No. 762 of 1961 and it was allowed on 27.6.1983 holding that the property being a, joint family property the will is not enforceable Thereafter, Dhandapani filed O.S. No. 32 of 1965, in Sub Court, Erode seeking for redemption of the unsufructuary mortgage, to which plaintiffs were not made as parties. It resulted in a compromise and possession was taken by defendants on 19.10.1967. During the pendency of the suit Dhandapani died on 24.9.1965. This decree is not binding upon plaintiffs. As the said mortgage had not been validly redeemed, possession of the defendants could not destroy the rights of the heirs of the mortgagor Ranganatha. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of Ranganatha. By virtue of adverse possession they acquired absolute title to the suit property. If it be held that the suit property is' joint family property, then they are entitled to the relief of partition, as claimed. If it be held that the first plaintiff was in the exclusive keeping of Ranganatha, from 1931 till his death on 23.8.1955, those plaintiffs are entitled to the maintained from and out of the suit property.

5. Defendants I to 6 assert that no marriage ceremony and tying of thali on 1.2.1933 over took place as claimed by plaintiffs, and that she was already married to one Kuppusami and he was alive at the time of alleged marriage and lived for many years thereafter, and that plaintiffs 2 to 4 are not the legitimate children of Ranganatha. The suit property is a joint family property of Subramania Iyer and his two sons, and it devolved on defendants 1 to 3 and their father Dhan-daoani by survivorship, on the death of Ranganatha in 1955, because his wife Bagirathi and his son Pichan predeceased him. "When he was hospitalised, the will (Exhibit A.33) was fabricated, and even thereinfirst plaintiff was described as a concubine. After the decision in O.S. No. 279 of 1958 and in S.A. No. 762 of 1961, the validity of the will cannot any longer be, nor the character of the property could be, gone into, as the decisions rendered therein would operate as res judicata. As for the composition deed (Exhibit A.34), it having been already hold as totally in -admissible for want of registration, plaintiffs cannot once again rely upon it to claim that the property belonged to Ranganatha as his separate property; and on this aspect also, the earlier decision would operate as res judicata. First plaintiff in her deposition in O.S. No. 279 of 1958 had clearly stated that she was the kept concubine of late Ranganatha and even the alleged concubinage is invalid, and in the context of the. earlier proceedings, the plea of adverse possession is an after-thought and baseless. As Dhandapani and his heirs having acquired rights in the property subsequent 'to 23.8.1955, and having discharged the usufructuary mortgage in their own right, and admittedly defendants having lost possession since 196 7, and the suit having been instituted in 1970, the plea of adverse possession, is unsustainable. The other factual allegations about Dhandapani and Subramania Iyer leaving the suit house and of Pichan not being cared for have been specifically denied as untrue. In the mortgage deed dated 4.3.1951, Ranganatha had described Pichan as his only son, and at no point of time had ever recognised plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his legitimate children. Reference was also made to other proceedings which are referred to in the judgment of the Court below, and it is unnecessary to repeat themherein. When defendants do not admit that plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the legitimate children of Ranganatha, they are not entitled to the relief of partition claimed nor grant of any maintenance whatsoever. Even if first plaintiff is held to be a permanent concubine, she would not be entitled to be maintained out of the income from the joint family property. In spite of the earlier proceedings, the present suit had been instituted. At the instigation of Krishnasami Iyer, who was interested in appropriating the property based on the usufrcutuary mortgage and was resisting redemption of it when defendants took steps in that direction.

4. Affidavit filed by Krishnaswami, a relation of Ranganatha in S.C. No. 281 of 1954 describes her as concubine and that other plaintiffs were born through concubine.

5. The mortgage in O.S. No. 32 of 1965 had described her only as a permanently kept concubine.

6. In O.S. No. 279 of 1958, plaintiffs never took up the stand that first plaintiff was the wife, but their claim was to rely upon the composition deed so as to claim that the suit property is a separate property, and therefore, under the will wherein she had been described as concubine, her rights could be secured.

23. Regarding the contents of affidavit and written statement (i.e. items 4 and 5); being interested in the usufructuary mortgage, and being relations, they would not have tolerated in those years, a Naidu woman claiming status of the wife of a Brahmin. It is not as if that status could be derived, only if relations recognise. Outside world had treated her as wife, as found in notices by Bank (vide Exhibits A-31 and A-32), election records, Ration cards, etc., and in entries found in school records about plaintiffs 2 to 4. When he had himself recognised her as having lived with him as a devoted, sincere, faithful wife, and duration of cohabitation not being disputed; though the origin was in the nature of a concubinage; after the death of Bagirathi Ammal in 1940, for 15 long years Ranganatha had treated her as his wife, lived with her in the same house and three children were born to them and he had intended to confer upon them rights in the property. But unfortunately, as happens when entire legal aspects are not properly understood, the composition deed (Exhibit A-34) haying not brought forth what was aimed at when his brother was in difficulties; plaintiffs could not derive the advantage under Exhibit A-33 will. As held in Muthayya v. Kamu alias Kamala Ammal (1981) 94 L.W.I 93 multitude of materials exist to show that Society had treated her as wife of Ranganatha. The status acquired by long cohabitation cannot also be lost.