A G VENKATANARASIAH Vs. VIJAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in C. S. No. 141 of 1971 on the file of the Original Side of this Court is the petitioner in these applications. In that suit instituted by the first respondent in C. M. P. No. 12420 of 1981 and the sole respondent in C. M, P. 12427 of 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder) she prayed for partition and separate possession of 1/28th share in the A and B Sch. properties and for partition and separate possession of half share in the C and D Schedule properties and for recovery of possession of E Schedule Stridhana and other movable properties from the petitioner in these applications or such of the defendants as may be found to be in possession of the Stridhana and other movable properties and also for declaration of her title to the F Schedule properties and for recovery of possession thereof from defendants 2, 11 to 13 in the suit. In addition, the relief of rendition of accounts by. defendants I to 7 in the suit in respect of the income realised from the A and B Schedule properties from 19-91961 and a similar relief as against the petitioner herein in respect of C and D schedule properties and also F schedule properties was prayed for by her certain defences were set up to this suit and for purposes of the present applications, it is unnecessary to notice them in detail, as. we are now concerned only with Item 3 of the E Schedule. In relation to this item, in para 30 of the written statement filed by the petitioner in the course of the suit, the petitioner denied the presentation thereof at the time of the marriage of Vijayalakshmi The custody of the E Schedule items was denied by the petitioner, Issue No. 8 in the suit covered the dispute between the parties in relation to the E Schedule stridhana properties. Sethuraman J. who tried the suit found that Item No. 3 of the E Schedule belonged to the stepmother of the petitioner in these applications mid was given to the decree-holder merely for the purpose of being worn by her at the time of her marriage and, therefore, that item cannot be claimed by her. Items 6 and 8 of the plaint E Schedule were found to belong to the decreeholder and she was held entitled to recover them, As regards Items 14 to 17 and 19 in E Schedule, the petitioner was found to be in possession of those items and the decree-holder was declared entitled to a half share therein. In accordance with these findings, the decree in the suit under Cls. 7 and 8, thereof provided as under-

(2.) Aggrieved by this decree dt. 13-91974, which negatived the claim made by the decree-holder, she preferred an appeal in O.S.A. 45 of 1975 and the petitioner and others filed a memorandum of cross-objections objecting to the decree in favour of Vjayalakshmi in relation to certain items. The appeal as well as the memorandum of cross-objections were heard by a Division Bench consisting of Gokulakrishnan and Varadarajan JJ an 29-8-1979. Dealing with Item 3 of the E Schedule property, the Division Bench held thus-

(3.) in accordance with this conclusion arrived at with reference to Item 3 of the It Schedule, the decree provided as follows--