MUHAMMED Vs. ALIKUTTY
LAWS(KER)-1963-2-12
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on February 07,1963

MUHAMMED Appellant
VERSUS
ALIKUTTY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAMANUJA V. DEVANAYAKA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PONNAMMA PILLAI INDIRA PILLAI VS. PADMANABHAN CHANNAR KESAVAN CHANNAR KESAVABHAVANAM [LAWS(KER)-1968-7-26] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The plaintiffs are the appellants. The appeal is from a decree in a suit for partition and recovery of the plaintiffs' share in the plaint schedule properties. The properties originally belonged to one Ammad Haji, deceased. Plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 5 are his children, the 3rd defendant is his widow and the 1st defendant, his mother. Before his death, Ammad Haji had sold the plaint properties to the 1st defendant and had taken the same back on kanom. On 21 10 1942, when the plaintiffs and the 5th defendant were minors, the 3rd and 4th defendants executed a release of the kanom right in the properties to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant thereafter made a gift of the properties to the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that the release of the kanom right executed by the 3rd defendant as guardian of the plaintiffs who were minors was void and sued for the reliefs mentioned above. The 1st defendant died before entering appearance and no legal representatives were impleaded.
(2.)The 2nd defendant contended that Ammad Haji had sold the properties by a registered deed dated 10-6-1937 to the 1st defendant, & thereafter had taken back the properties on kanom, that the 3rd defendant acting for herself and as guardian of her minor children along with the 4th defendant, had transferred the rights under the kanom on 21-10-1942 to the 1st defendant and that the 1st defendant made an oral gift of the properties to the 2nd defendant. Therefore the 2nd defendant contended that he had become the full owner of the properties and was in possession, and that even if the release of the kanom right was void, the 1st defendant and himself were in possession adversely to the plaintiffs and had acquired title to the property by prescription and that the suit was barred by limitation.
(3.)The court below found that the release deed executed by the 3rd and 4th defendants was void as the 3rd defendant had no capacity under the Mohammedan Law to represent the minor plaintiffs & the 5th defendant, that the 3rd plaintiff was a minor on the date of suit but as plaintiffs 1 and 2 attained majority more than three years before the date of the suit the whole suit was barred.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.