CICILY Vs. SULAIKHA BEEVI
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The 1st defendant in O. S. 709 of 1959 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Trivandrum is the appellant before us.
(2.) The plaintiff - respondent brought the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of her alleged 1/3 share in the plaint schedule property after redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 13-9-1918 evidenced by Ext. P4 on payment of the proportionate mortgage amount to the 1st. defendant. The courts below have upheld the plaintiff's right to 5/32 shares in the plaint schedule property and passed a preliminary decree for partition and redemption entitling the plaintiff to recover possession of her aforesaid share on deposit of the proportionate mortgage amount and value of improvements. In this second appeal the only contention raised before us on behalf of the appellant is that the plaintiff's right to recover possession of her share of the suit property had become extinguished by adverse possession and limitation and that the suit ought to have been dismissed as barred under Art.144 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
(3.) The plaint schedule property belonged to one Vappu Kochika who died leaving four sons Vava Kunju, Moideen Kunju, Adima and Sayed Mohammed. Vava Kunju died in 1052 and his widow released her rights in the property in favour of Adima in 1079. Adima died in 1083 leaving the plaintiff and her mother as his heirs. The plaintiff's mother died in 1110. Moideen Kunju died, in 1084 leaving two sons Asanaru and Abdul Kader. Vava Kunju and Sayed Mohammed died issueless. It has to be noted that parties are all Muslims governed by the ordinary Muslim Law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.