N.SESHASAYEE,J. - (1.) The plaintiff who was non-suited, by both the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court in the suit filed for declaration of title and for consequential decree of injunction seeking to restrain the defendants and their men from her peaceful possession of the suit property is the appellant herein.
(2.) The plaintiff's case as disclosed in the pleadings may be outlined as below: The suit property in S.F. No. 225/11A of Iyyaanadaippu Village, Tuticorin Taluk, has an extent of 92 ares, equivalent to about 86.5 cents. This property originally belonged to Pulamadan Thevar. On 24-08-1920, he sold this property to one Ayyappa Kudumban. Ayyappa Kudumban had a son and a daughter. His son was Kumarandi and daughter was Solaiammal. Solaiammal married one Arumugam and she died issue-less on 26.09.1985. On the demise of his father Ayyappa Kudumban, Kumarandi became the absolute owner of the suit property. He married one Ananthammal (not the plaintiff). They did have any issues. While so, they adopted the plaintiff when she was barely three years old as per customary rites. On 14-12-1983, Kumarandi executed a registered Will in favour of the plaintiff and bequeathed the suit property in favour of his wife Anandammal and the plaintiff. After Kumarandi's demise, the legatees under the Will of Kumarandi obtained the entire properties and have been enjoying the same. While so, on 02-12-1989, the adoptive mother of the plaintiff (wife of Kumarandi) executed a registered Will, bequeathing her share in the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff became entitled to the entire suit property. Necessary mutations were effected in the revenue records and she was issued a patta bearing No. 837 for the suit property. The defendants hail from Maramangalam Village in Srivaikundam Taluk. First Defendant and his brother Narayanan were the children of one Mookandi and Piratti, and to grab the suit property from the plaintiff, they created false and bogus documents stating that they are the heirs of Solaiammal. With the help of these records obtained by them in the year 1996, they made an application to the Tahsildar, Tuticorin, for transfer of patta in their name. Without any enquiry, the Tahsildar transferred the patta in their name. Challenging the same, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal to the Collector. Now on the strength of the patta obtained by them, the defendants attempt to disturb plaintiff's possession. Hence the suit for declaration by the plaintiff.
(3.) Denying the allegations in the plaint and disputing the Will, and on the basis of which plaintiff seeks her right, the first defendant in his written statement has alleged: It is admitted that Ayyappan purchased the suit property on 24-08-1920 and that he had a son named Kumarandi and a daughter named Solaiammal. It is however disputed that Solaiammal died issue-less. Solaiammal had obtained half right in the suit property as per succession. She had initially married one Arumugam, but as per customary practice, she divorced him and married a certain Mookandi in 1948. Mookandi was already married and had children and that his wife had died leaving the children to the care of Mookandi. Mookandi's wife was Solaimmal's relative. In order to care Mookandi's children born to his first wife, Solaiammal had divorced her husband Arumugham and married Mookandi. When Solaimmal married Mookandi in 1948, Kumarandi had orally relinquished his half right in the suit property in her favour, and ever since Solaiammal was in enjoyment of the suit properly as its absolute owner. She was also paying necessary taxes and rates payable for the property. During re-survey in 1959, Solaiammal was granted patta bearing No. 175 for the suit property which indicates the confirmation of her exclusive right over the suit property. On Solaiammal's demise, the property came to the hands of Mookandi's two sons namely the first defendant and Narayanan. Narayanan is dead and defendants 2 to 6 are his heirs. It was Narayanan and the first defendant who performed last rites for Solaiammal. In the Will dated 14-03-1983, purported to have been executed by Kumarandi, the suit property was included and this meant that there is no connect between Kumarandi and the suit property. The plaintiff is the adopted child of Kumarandi and Anandammal. Her alleged adoptive mother had died on 04-12-1989 and she was indisposed and was unconscious for some time prior to her death. Therefore, the allegation in the plaint that Anandammal had executed a Will on 02-12-1989, just two days prior to her death is true. Besides, she did have any right to execute a Will.;