AYYASWAMI AIYAR Vs. MAHADEVA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the 1 defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiffs as reversionary heirs of one Gurunatha Aiyar impleading numerous other defendants who have not appealed. The plaintiffs claimed to be the reversioners and this fact was disputed by the defendants but they only put plaintiffs to proof of it. P.Ws. 1 to 7 have all given evidence on the point and their evidence has been believed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Certain criticisms have been put forward in this Court which contain nothing of sufficient importance to discredit the testimony of the witnesses who have been believed by the Trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing them give their evidence. It is also significant that defendants 1 to 3 were not prepared to go into the witness box and swear that the plaintiffs were not members of their family, a fact which must be within their knowledge. We must, therefore, accept the finding that the plaintiffs are reversioners.

(2.) The second finding of fact relates to the question of who was the last male holder. The plaintiffs say that Gurunatha Aiyar was the last male holder but the defendants contend that he predeceased his father, Chidambaram Aiyar, who was the last male holder. The evidence is all on one side, namely, that of P.Ws. 2, 4, 5 and 7, which is unrebutted by any evidence for the defendants. That evidence is also supported by some prior proceedings in Court where the question had been raised. The learned Subordinate Judge has believed these witnesses and we see no reason to differ from his conclusion.

(3.) The plaintiffs case was that Gomathi Ammal, the widow of Gurunatha Aiyar, came into possession of her husband's property and surrendered the appeal items to her sister-in-law Kamakshi Ammal, and that there was no necessity for that surrender, and, consequently, the plaintiffs entitled to recover the properties now. The defendants first of all took the plea that Gurunatha Aiyar was not the last male holder but Kamakshi's father, Chidambaram Aiyar, from whom she, Kamakshi, inherited the property. In setting out their case in the written statement the plea that Chidambaram Aiyar was the last male holder comes first and then we come to para. 11: In the face of it, it is absurd to state in para. 6 of the plaint that Gomathi Ammal surrendered some of the properties to Kamakshi Ammal. There was no necessity for such a surrender either.