Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
(g) There has been a long gap of 28 years since her father died and now the plaintiff has come for Letters of Administration and the long delay in probating the Will has not been explained. The plaintiff has not come before this Court with clean hands and it is for the sole purpose to delay and deny the benefits to the real legal heirs of late S.V.Ramakrishnan.
(h) The defendant denies that respondents 1 to 4 and the plaintiff are the legal heirs of the deceased S.V.Ramakrishnan. The defendants are the only legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased S.V.Ramakrishnan was married to S.V.Rajalakshmi and out of wedlock, defendants were born. The first respondent was only concubine of the deceased S.V.Ramakrishnan. She was never married to him and respondents 2 to 4 and the plaintiff are illegitimate children.
(f) The first respondent even succeeded in bringing about an estrangement between late S.V.Ramakrishnan and his children, viz, the respondents 5 and 6 after the death of their mother and the first respondent cunningly induced respondent 5--Lalitha to marry her maternal uncle Mr.Ekambaram much to the displeasure of her father late S.V.Ramakrishnan and also succeeded in estranging the feeling of the father and son--respondent 6 and his father late S.V.Ramakrishnan. The first respondent thereafter induced and coerced S.V.Ramakrishnan to execute the Will and it is with great aversion, he consented. The Will itself would bear witness to the animosity that he bore towards the first respondent--Saroja in stating that, "I am living with Smt.Saroja and we are living as husband and wife even though there has not been a marriage between us." This statement clearly shows that Saroja was not the wife of S.V.Ramakrishnan, but only a concubine, thereby, she and her children have no inheritable status. This aspect was confirmed by Court proceedings in C.S.No.108 of 1992 and confirmed in O.S.A.No.47 of 1994 and finally in C.S.Nos.577 to 579 of 1995, by judgment dated 22.01.2002 in relation to a sale deed executed by the first respondent, the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 4 to Mr.D.K.Sekar. The first respondent in her own affidavit before the City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.P.No.12172 of 1972 in L.A.C.No.223 of 1959, has admitted to the fact that she is not the wife of late S.V.Ramakrishnan. In that affidavit, she states, "I, Saroja, daughter of Govindaswamy Mudaliar etc, etc---" and not as the wife of S.V.Ramakrishnan, and this statement is much after the Will dated 15.07.1970.
(g) Item Nos.3 and 4 of the affidavit of assets, are the subject matter of E.P.No.48 of 1997 in C.A.No.224 of 1974 in C.S.No.43 of 1962, presently on the file of the Supreme Court of India as S.L.P.Nos.13783 to 13786 of 2008. The Will has no schedule of properties. It simply states, "It will not be possible now to detail the properties immovable, movable, cash etc., that I may die possessed of. Hence I do not propose to detail them." Neither the Will provides for the fourth respondent-Dhanurmathi, nor is there a codicil to that effect. The Will neither gives the first respondent--Saroja the status of a wife, for it states, "I am living with Srimathi Saroja, and we are living as husband and wife even though there has not been a marriage between us." This statement only shows that he accepted her as his concubine, which has been admitted by the first respondent-Saroja in her own sworn affidavit before the City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.P.No.12172 of 1972 in L.A.C.No.223 of 1959, which reads, "I, Saroja, daughter of Govindaswamy Mudaliar, aged 33 years..." and it further states, "I am the mother and guardian of Ramprasad, the second claimant. I state that having regard to the facts of the case, and the legal position, the minor second claimant is not entitled to any right etc."
"The result is there is no proof of any marriage between the first plaintiff and Meenakshisundaram and that the children born cannot also be treated as legitimate children."
... ...
22. In the case on hand there is absolutely no evidence to establish the question of marriage between Nainamalai and the fourth defendant. More so, both the courts below have concurrently, on a question of fact, held that there was no marriage at all in any form between the said Nainamalai and the fourth defendant. When there is no marriage, the fourth defendant can be only a concubine of the said Nainamalai. Section 16 of the said Act do not deal with the rights of the children through the concubinage.