Girija Vel: 29. The Learned Counsel for the appellants, as an alternate argument, submitted that if the Will (Ex.A.147) is not to be believed and relied, the first plaintiff alone will be entitled to

[09/11, 07:33] Girija Vel: 29. The Learned Counsel for the appellants, as an alternate argument,
submitted that if the Will (Ex.A.147) is not to be believed and relied, the first
plaintiff alone will be entitled to a share in the property of Venkataraja Konar
being his widow. He pursued the Court to mould the relief and grant a share in the
suit properties not based on testamentary succession, but on the basis of intestate
succession by presuming that Venkataraja Konar died intestate and the first
plaintiff being the legally wedded wife of Venkataraja Konar, would be entitle to
inherit the properties as Class I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
30. In view of this Court, such relief cannot be granted for two
reasons. First and primarily, the status of the first plaintiff as the wife of
Venkataraja Konar was not specifically sought in the plaint by way of declaratory
relief. Nonetheless, the trial Court framed an issue to that effect and given its
finding. On appeal, this Court also has also considered this point and answered in
negative. Having failed to prove the marital relationship with Venkataraja Konar,
share in his properties through suit for partition as Class-I legal heir is not
[09/11, 07:33] Girija Vel: Presumption of relationship in case of long cohabitation of the man and women – The best evidence to show the cohabitation under one roof is the family card, voter identification card or any other official cards indicating that a man and the women were living under one roof for a long time and presumable they are related as husband and wife
2025 (5)CTC 830 MADRAS
ALAMELU VS CHINNA RAJA KONAR (DIED) AND ANOTHER
SOBHA HYMAVATHI DEVI VS SETTI GANGADHARA SAMY 2005(2) SCC 244