MANIAMMAL ALIAS RAJAMBAL Vs. MANGALAKSHMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohan, J.: The plaintiff is the appellant before us.

(2.) The appellant filed O.S.No.107 of 1973 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Pondicherry (i) for a declaration of title to the suit properties (ii) for recovery of possession of Schedule C -1 and C -2 properties and (3) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of Schedules B -1 to B -4.

(3.) The plaint averments, inter alia, are as under: Rangasamy Gounder, the husband of the plaintiff, was the original owner of the suit properties mentioned in the plaint schedule. He acquired the same in his personal name for his own benefit, with his private and personal fund. He had independent means of his own, as he was trading in bricks, which provided him with considerable personal income. Under the Hindu Law, as it prevailed at Pondicherry, there was no joint family between father and sons during the lifetime of the father and the sons do not get any right by birth. The father of Rangasamy Gounder, i.e. Subbaraya Gounder, did not have sufficient means for his livelihood. Hence Rangasamy Gounder maintained his father out of his own personal income. Added to that, he also maintained his brother, Govindasamy Gounder, who did not have sufficient means. Rangasamy Gounder died on 23.10.1951, leaving the plaintiff and three daughters. As per the Hindu Law obtaining in Pondicherry, the plaintiff inherited the entire properties left by her husband as his sole heir. The HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 of 1956 came into force in Pondicherry on 1.10.1963. By the operation of the provisions of the said Act, the plaintiff became the owner of the suit properties. The plaintiff continued to live in her husband's house at Muthira -palayam, where Govindasamy Gounder also lived with his family. On 2.12.1972 when the plaintiff started to cultivate the lands mentioned in Schedule C -1 for raising sugarcane crop, Govindasamy Gounder threatened and prevented her from carrying out the agricultural operation. In January, 1973 Govindasamy Gounder trespassed into the lands mentioned in Schedule C -1. He cultivated sugarcane in/ the absence of the plaintiff and without her knowledge. Govindasamy Gounder, after dispossessing the plaintiff, continued to retain the possession with him. He died in April, 1973 leaving behind defendants 1 to 6. The fourth defendant, son of late Govindasamy Gounder, interfered with the possession of the plaintiff of the lands mentioned in Schedule B -1 to B -4. Govindasamy Gounder took advantage of the ignorance of the plaintiff and had misused the confidence placed in him by the plaintiff. He also fabricated documents with a view to deprive her of her right in the suit properties. Neither Govindasamy Gounder nor defendants had any right to the suit properties. Hence, the suit.