KUNJUMANGELI Vs. KRISHNAN NAMBOODRIPAD
LAWS(KER)-1974-3-19
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on March 20,1974

Kunjumangeli Appellant
VERSUS
Krishnan Namboodripad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

T.CHANDRASEKHARA MENON, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. She is the daughter of a deceased member of a namboocliri. family known as Kunnappilly Illom. A partition was effected in the family in 1960, which is evidenced in the case by document marked as Ex. P1. This deed of partition was executed by 24 members of the family. The legal guardians acted on behalf of the minor members. Besides these 24 members, there was at that time another member in the family, one Naravanan Namboodripad, whose whereabouts were unknown. In the partition effected, shares were set apart to three ladies including the plaintiff, who were not members of the Illom, but who were daughters of deceased members of the Illom on the ground that they were not given sthridanam at the time of their marriage. Besides, one member an executant of the deed was allotted an additional share in view of the fact that she was a widow without any support. A share was also set apart to Narayanan Namboodripad earlier mentioned. The family properties were thus divided into 29 equal shares. To the branch of the defendants were allotted 16 shares including that which have been set apart to the plaintiff. The partition deed is dated 20 -7 -1960.
(2.) THE present suit was brought forward by the appellant alleging that she is not being given income due on her share, and that she is entitled to a separate 1/16th share of the plaint schedule properties, which in the partition deed, had been set apart to the defendants. The suit is one for partition by metes and bounds and for giving the plaintiff separate possession of her 1/16th share. The plaint properties form B schedule of Ex. P1 partition deed. The plaintiff is not a member of the Illom nor is she an executaut of the partition deed. By the division effected in accordance with Ex. P1, the Illom got itself separated into four branches, of which the defendants are members of what is termed in the deed as the second branch. Defendants 1 and 2 are described in the plaint as the karnavan and senior ananthiravan of the second branch. In the joint written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2, they while admitting the execution of Ex. P1 took 'p the position that the plaintiff had been giver, her sthridhanam, and the provision in the document setting apart the rights to the ladies (obviously meaning those who had been married away from the illom) is invalid in law. Minor defendants 6 to 10 through their guardian also took up the same stand. It will be relevant to extract the particular portion from their written statement: (Original in Malayalam omitted. - -Ed.)
(3.) DEFENDANTS 11 to 15 who are also minors and who were represented in the proceedings by court guardian, only contended in a wild manner that the properties are not partitioned as claimed by the plaintiff, nor the minors' assets in any way be prejudicially affected by the plaint claim.;


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