Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1656 - HC - Indian LawsPreliminary decree in respect of 3rd item of the property namely deposit in the bank - legal heirs of late Durairaj - Validity of alleged marriage between Kamalambal and Durairaj - bigamy - Whether the first item of the property belonged to Durairaj and if so, the plaintiffs are entitled to share?? - entitlement to partition - HELD THAT:- When the evidence of DW1/first wife of Durairaj, when carefully analysed, in the chief examination, she has stated that Kamalambal was never given a status as wife of Durairaj. DW1 also admitted that her first child was born in the year 1955 and immediately died after 9 days. Thereafter, the second defendant born in the year 1958. Afterwards 3rd child was born and died after 5 days. These events, infact probablised the plaintiffs' case that in order to have a male child, Durairaj infact has decided to marry Kamalambal. The cross-examination of DW1 also clearly show that when Kamalambal was at the age of 16 there was illegal connection between her husband and Kamalambal and she has also stated that Kamalambal was living in Ganapathinagar house from the year 1957 till date. Further, she has also admitted that she never objected Kamalambal living in Ganapathinagar house. She also admitted that only her husband has kept Kamalambal in Ganapathinagar house. The cross-examination clearly indicate that Kamalambal and Durairaj was living together from the year 1957. The conduct of DW1 probablise the plaintiffs' case that there was a second marriage to Durairaj and Kamalambal in the year 1960 itself. Further, in the cross-examination of DW1 also, she has not denied the specific question that from 1960 onwards her husband was living with Kamalambal. What she tried to say is that her husband also used to come to Abraham Panditham street, where DW1 was living. These facts clearly shows that from the year 1960, Kamalambal and Durairaj, were living together and evidence of PW3, PW4, PW5, PW7 and PW9 clearly probablised the plaintiff case that there was a 2nd marriage performed between Durairaj and Kamalambal. It is to be noted that DW1 is the sister of an important personality in Thanjavur. As per the evidence, her brother is also politically connected and also Member of Parliament for some time. Therefore, the witnesses turning hostile may be due to various reasons. The same is not germane for consideration. In the entire evidence of PW8, the chief examination itself is sufficient to prove Ex.A30. In view of the evidence of PW8 in chief, one of the attesting witnesses coupled with the non denial of the signature of DW1 in the gift deed/Ex.A30, there is no difficulty for this Court to hold that Ex.A30 has been executed by DW1, infact DW1 has not challenged the document in all these days. This is also one of the grounds to hold that this document has been duly executed by herself. The factum of marriage not only clearly established by the oral evidence but also by the documentary evidence. The conduct of DW1 treating the mother of the plaintiffs as life partner of her husband and executed the gift deed would go to show there was a second marriage - Further conduct of first wife not objecting for such relationship of her husband from from the very inception i.e. from the year 1960 till his death, and also consideration of natural events in the family of Durairaj in entirety, this Court also draw the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that there was a second marriage. Further the oral evidence on the side of the plaintiffs particularly, PW4, PW5, PW7 and PW9, also not assailed in the cross-examination. That apart, as stated above, from the documentary evidence and the conduct of the party, one could see that there was a marriage between Kamalambal and Durairaj. The amount deposited is not lying with the 3rd defendant bank as admitted by both sides and the above factum was also informed to the plaintiffs in the year 1989 itself and there is no amount lying with the third defendant bank, granting preliminary decree for the amount which was not in existence is liable to be interferred - Application disposed off.
|