LEKSHMY SAROJINI Vs. NARAYANI LEKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 94 of 1981 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur are the appellants. The appellants filed the above suit for partition claiming that they have 8/11 share in the plaint schedule property. The case of the appellants is that the plaint schedule property belonged to the sub tarwad since that property was allotted to the first respondent and her mother Narayani under Ext. A1 settlement deed executed in their favour by Govindan, the father and Nangeli, the mother of Narayani. Appellants 3 to 8 are the children of the first appellant, appellants 1 and 2 are respondents 2 and 3 are the children of the first respondent and respondents 4 and 5 are strangers. Alleging that the plaint schedule property belonged to the sub tarwad and that there are 11 members in that Sub tarwad, the appellants claim 8/11 share in the plaint schedule property.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 5 raised the contention that the plaint schedule property was acquired by the deceased Govindan in the name of his wife Nangeli. It is the case of the respondents that Nangeli was only a name lender and that the property exclusively belonged to Govindan. Nangeli and Govindan jointly executed settlement deed No. 587 of 1103 M.E. which is marked in this case as Ext. A1 under the provisions of which the plaint schedule property was given to the first respondent and her mother Narayani. The definite contention raised by respondents 1 to 5 is that there was no sub tarwad as alleged by the appellants and that on the death of Narayani, the first respondent got absolute right over the plaint schedule property. The allegation of the appellants that they were Marumakkathayam Ezhavas is disputed by the respondents. It is also contended that the appellants did not get any right in the plaint schedule property.

(3.) The Trial Court on finding that the appellants did not prove that they were governed by Marumakkathayam Law came to the conclusion that they are not entitled to any share in the plaint schedule property. It was also observed by the Trial Court that Ext. A1 settlement deed under the provisions of which the appellants claim share in the plaint schedule property does not show that the parties were Marumakkathayee Ezhavas governed by Marumakkathayam Law. The suit was thus dismissed by the Trial Court.