Karunanidhi vs Seetharama Naidu & Ors

3) We herein set out the facts, in detail, to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal.

4) The dispute in this appeal is between the heirs of one Perumal Naidu, who was the original ancestor in the family. The legal heirs of Perumal Naidu represent three branches of the family.

6) In order to properly answer the aforementioned questions, which lie in a narrow compass and based on more or less undisputed facts, it is necessary to set out the family genealogy tree.

8) Perumal had three wives-Subbammal, Lakshmi Ammal and Pappu Ammal. Out of the first marriage with Subbammal, one daughter was born - Muthammal. Out of the wedlock of Muthammal, two daughters-Andal Ammal and Vijayalakshmi were born. Vijayalakshmi, however, died during her minority. Out of the wedlock of Andal Ammal, one son-Seetharama Naidu (plaintiff No.1) and a daughter- Sagunthala (plaintiff No. 2) were born.

10) On 27.12.1923, Perumal Naidu executed a Will and bequeathed his immovable and movable properties including the suit properties to his heirs such as, his 3rd wife, two daughters from second wife, his granddaughters from first wife and his son-in-law. The Will specified the extent of properties bequeathed to each heir named above. Soon after the execution of the Will, Perumal Naidu died in the 1924.

12) In the suit, the challenge was made to the legality and validity of the Will executed by Perumal Naidu including the extent of properties bequeathed to the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, they were entitled to receive more shares in the properties left by their father - Late Perumal Naidu than what was bequeathed to them in the Will. In this suit, Andal Ammal-grand-daughter of late Perumal Naidu, who is the mother of the plaintiffs of this litigation was one of the defendants.

13) Vide judgment/decree dated 15.09.1925, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. It was, however, held that the Will executed by Perumal Naidu in favour of his several heirs was a valid Will. The plaintiffs, felt aggrieved, filed appeal being First Appeal No. 284/1925 but it was dismissed. The plaintiffs then filed second appeal, which was also dismissed. This litigation ended finally as no further appeal was filed by the plaintiffs after the decision of the High Court in S.A. No. 234 of 1925.

15) On 01.10.1987, Alamelu Ammal-daughter of Perumal Naidu executed a Will of her property and bequeathed its some portion to her sister- Ramanujatha Ammal and the remaining to the appellant herein. Alamelu Ammal, however, died soon after execution of the Will on 29.10.1987.

16) Ramanujatha Ammal-another daughter also executed a Will dated 25.11.1987 of her share, which consisted of some properties received by her from her father and remaining from her sister -Alamelu Ammal by Will .By her Will, she bequeathed her properties to the appellant herein and others.

17) It is with the aforementioned factual background, second round of litigation began between the surviving heirs of Late Perumal Naidu out of which the present appeal arises.

19) On 15.12.1987, Seetharama Naidu and Sagunthala served a legal notice to Ramanujatha Ammal. Though in the notice, no legal basis was mentioned and nor any specific share in the suit properties was demanded and nor any factual foundation was laid as to how and on what basis, the notice was being sent demanding share in the properties held by Alamelu Ammal and Ramanujatha Ammal except stating therein that they were entitled to claim right, title, interest and share in the properties received by Ramanujatha Ammal from her late father and sister-Alamelu Ammal. In other words, according to them, the properties received and possessed by Ramanujatha Ammal had devolved on them by succession on the death of Alamelu Ammal in 1987 but did not devolve on Ramanujatha Ammal because they were heirs through father’s side. Ramanujatha Ammal, on receipt of notice, denied the claim by sending her reply on 23.12.1987.

24) The plaintiffs, felt aggrieved, filed Second Appeal No. 873/2003 before the High Court. During the pendency of the second appeal, the defendant passed away on 29.07.2004. The plaintiffs filed C.M.P. No. 8691 of 2006 before the High Court to implead the appellant herein as respondent in the second appeal as legal representatives of the defendant. By its order dated 25.04.2012, the High Court brought the appellant herein as respondent to represent the estate of the respondent(defendant).

production of the original Will and without making grounds for reception of second evidence?

43) In the light of foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that though the High Court was right in upholding all the findings of fact of the two courts below but was not right in relying upon Section 15(2)(a) of the Act for allowing the plaintiffs’ second appeal by treating them to be Class I heirs from father’s side and, in consequence, was also not right in decreeing the plaintiffs’ suit in part by granting 1/3rd share to each plaintiff in the suit property. This finding, as held above, is legally unsustainable and hence deserves to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside.

45) As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored resulting in dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

March 27, 2017