T. Venkatadri, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the defendant Perumal Nadar, who died during the pendency of the appeal and whose legal representative Seethalakshmi Ammal has been brought on record against the judgment rendered in O.S. No. 37 of 1959, on the file of the Sub -Court, Tirunelveli, granting a decree to the respondent (Plaintiff) for partition and. separate possession of his half share in the suit properties.
(2.) THE respondent minor Ponnuswami through his mother and next friend Annapazham, filed the suit for partition and separate possession, on the ground that his mother was the legally wedded wife of the appellant (Perumal Nadar) that they were married in November, 1950, and were living as husband and wife that he was born during their wedlock in the month of March, 1958 and that due to the evil habits and waywardness, his father Perumal Nadar neglected to maintain his mother and abandoned him. His father was under the influence of his sister and sister's husband, with the result the respondent's mother was notable to live with him on account of danger to her life and that both mother and son had to seek the protection of his grand -parents. Therefore, the present suit was filed as aforesaid. The appellant Perumal Nadar resisted the suit on the ground that he was congenitally deaf and dumb, that at no time he underwent any form of marriage with Annapazham (respondent's mother) that even assuming that there was a marriage it was invalid in law (as she was a Christian at the time of the marriage and he being a Hindu), that even if there was a marriage with the respondent's mother that marriage would be void according to the Madras Hindu Bigamy Act of 1949, as at the time of the marriage he already had Seethalakshmi as his wife, and that in any event the respondent was not born to him, as he ceased to have cohabitation with Annapazaham more than five years before the suit. The respondent disputed the allegations in the written statement and filed a reply to the effect though his mother was a Christian at the time of the marriage she was a Hindu, that the marriage took place according to Hindu rites and samskaras, that in some criminal proceedings between the parties it was held that Seethalakshmi was not the legally wedded wife, that Perumal Nadar was made to execute the gift deed under undue influence and coercion in favour of his sister of the joint family properties which was invalid in law, that the respondent was entitled to ignore the said transaction and that therefore, he should be given a decree for his half -share in the suit properties.
(3.) ON these pleadings, the parties went to trial before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, who framed a number of issues the important among them being whether Annapazham was the legally wedded wife of the appellant, whether the marriage was void under the Madras Hindu Bigamy Act and whether the respondent (minor Ponnuswami) was the son of the appellant (Perumal Nadar).;