S.M. KRISHNA PILLAI AND ORS. Vs. K. BHOOPAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAKKAVUR Pillai married twice and through his first wife he had a daughter, by name Annammal, and a son, by name S. M. Kannappa. Through his second wife, he had one son by name S. M. Krishna Pillai. In this action, the wife of S. M. Kannappa is the first plaintiff and S. M. Krishna Pillai is the first defendant. Annammal married one M. Kannappa Pillai. Annammal husband died in or about 1928. There was no issue to M. Kannappa Pillai through Annammal. Annanrmal, however, purchased three properties, one of which is the subject -matter of this suit. One such property secured by her was settled in favour of Rajammal, the first plaintiff herein, under Exhibit B -14. Another property was settled by her, under Exhibit B -13, in favour of the first defendant. The third property, which is the subject -matter of the suit was left by her without making any disposition thereto when she died on 24th July, 1963. After Annammal's death, Rajammal who is none else than the sister of Annammal's husband, filed the present action, as the nearest heir under the Hindu Succession Act, for a declaration as such, and for possession of the suit property, which was by then with the first defendant.

(2.) THE first defendant's case is that he is the nearer heir to Annammal's estate and even otherwise, he would say, that it was his money which was lent on a mortgage in the name of Annammal, in or about 1935, and that Annammal, as such benamidar, instituted a suit on the said mortgage, obtained a mortgage decree and purchased the property in Court auction in her name ostensibly, though the real title always remained with the first defendant. On the ground that the property always stood benami in the name of Annammal the first defendant resisted the action. (Discussion of pleadings and issues omitted Ed.).

(3.) THE learned Judge found on Issue No. 3, that the suit property, at all material times, belonged to Annammal, in her own right, and that it never stood in her name benami for the benefit of the first defendant. On issues 1 and 2 the learned Judge stated that in accordance with Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, Rajammal was the nearer heir than the first defendant, and hence, the suit filed by Rajammal was maintainable and she was entitled to the relief asked for.