Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 69 of 1960 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, are the appellants in this appeal. They filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged 3|10th share of A and B schedule items and for past mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500 and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2,400 per annum from the date of suit till delivery of possession, or in the alternative, for possession of the properties equal in extent and value to that of the properties set out in the will dated 2nd May, 1949 executed by one Palaniswamy Nadar in favour of the first plaintiff. The first and second plaintiffs claimed respectively to be the son and fourth wife of the said Palaniswamy Nadar who died on 5th January, 1960 and the suit came to be filed on that basis. The first defendant is the third wife of Palaniswamy Nadar and defendants 2, 3 and 4 are his sons through the first defendant. The fifth defendant is the father of the first defendant and sister's husband of Palaniswamy Nadar. Defendants 6 and 7 are the grandsons of Valliammal, Pahniswamy's maternal aunt and also the sons of his brother, Mounaguruswami. The 8th defendant was impleaded as he was claiming certain rights as usufructuary mortgagee from Palaniswamy Nadar over one item. Palaniswamy got divided from his brothers and sisters by partition deeds dated 3rd August, 1955 and 6th March, 1959 and he died possessed of the properties set out in Schedules A and B to the plaint. Parts I and II of Schedule A to the plaint are the lands and houses respectively left by the deceased Palaniswamy. Part I and Part II of Schedule B are outstandings and movables respectively left by him.

13. According to the plaintiffs, there was a marriage between the second plaintiff and Palaniswamy in 1943 and they lived as husband and wife thereafter till Palaniswamy's death in 1960, at Coimbatore. They claim that Palaniswamy married the second plaintiff in Avani 1943 as has fourth wife, that the first plaintiff is a legitimate son born of that lawful wedlock and that the first plaintiff as one of the legitimate sons of Palaniswamy and the second plaintiff as one of his widows are respectively entitled to 2|10th share and l|10th share under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The defendants, on the other hand would say that the relationship between Palaniswamy and the second plaintiff was not one of husband and wife but was one of paramour and concubine. Therefore the contest between the parties mainly centres round the nature of the relationship between the second plaintiff and Palaniswamy and as such the main question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs had established their case of a valid marriage between the second plaintiff and the deceased Palaniswamy.

It is the evidence of P.W. 2 that she and Palaniswamy went to Madras in August, 1946, when the first plaintiff was conceived, that she asked Palaniswamy to execute a document recognising the marriage privately and secretly conducted earlier and the document Exhibit A-1 came into existence. Exhibit A-2 is an extract from the birth register and that shows that a child was born to Palaniswamy and the second plaintiff on 19th March, 1947 in door No. 82, Angalamman Koil Street, Coimbatore, and that the person who gave the report is Palaniswamy himself. This also shows that P.W. 6 Dr. Sengaliappan attended the delivery. Exhibit A-4, dated 2nd May, 1949, a will said to have been executed by Palaniswamy in favour of the first plaintiff was also relied on for purpose of proof of marriage. In the said will, the second plaintiff is referred to as the junior wife of Palaniswamy and the first plaintiff as his son. The second plaintiff has been appointed as guardian of the minor son, the first plaintiff. Under this will Palaniswamy purports to bequeath 6 acres and 64 cents of nanja land, bearing Survey No. 209 in Kannadiputhur Village, Udumalpet taluk to the first plaintiff and P.W. 1 is one of the attestors to this document. P.W. 1 and Damodara Iyengar are shown as identifying witnesses before the Sub-Registrar. Exhibit A-6 and A-7 are extracts from the school registers wherein Palaniswamy has signed as parent of the first plaintiff. Exhibits A-9 and A-10 are voters' list for Ward 29 of Coimbatora Town for the years 1955 and 1959 respectively wherein Palaniswamy is shown as the husband of the second plaintiff. Exhibits A-57, A-58 and A-59 are the proposal, personal statement and policy in respect of life insurance policy No. 70406 for Rs. 10,000 taken by Palaniswamy wherein the second plaintiff is shown as the fourth wife of Palaniswamy while nominating her under Section 39 of the Insurance Act. In his personal statement, Exhibit A-58 he has declared that he had two wives living and their ages are shown as 30 and 25. According to the plaintiffs in these documents Palaniswamy has admitted and acknowledged the second plaintiff as his wife and the first plaintiff as his son, and that this constitutes a conclusive piece of evidence to prove that there was a valid marriage between Palaniswamy and the second plaintiff.