A C THAMVAIKUTTY Vs. BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the supplemental third plaintiff in O. S. No. 169 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry. Appellant was originally the fifth defendant in the suit. Thereafter, he was transposed as third supplemental plaintiff.

(2.) One A.C. Mahim died without issues on 22.1.1987. At the time of his death, he was in service as Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. First defendant in the suit is his wife. First plaintiff is his father. Second plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 are his brothers. According to the plaintiffs, since Mahim died issueless, as per the Personal Law, his wife, the first defendant will be entitled to 1/4 share in the assets left by Mahim. His mother is entitled to 1/6 share. The remaining shares will go to the brothers. A schedule property was acquired by Mahim and a house was constructed by availing of a loan. He was residing in the house with his wife. C schedule items are the movables in A schedule building. B schedule item No. 1 is the deposit made by Mahim in Tellicherry Town Cooperative Bank. Item Nos. 2 and 3 are the amounts due from the Department as gratuity and under the family Benefit Scheme. Item Nos. 4 to 6 are arrears of salary due from the Department and the amount due from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and also the amount due from the Provident Fund Account. According to the plaintiffs, even though notice was issued for partition, the defendants repelled the same.

(3.) First defendant filed a written statement as follows: Plaint A schedule property and C schedule movables belong to her and Mahim had not invested anything for the construction of the house as well as for acquisition of movables. A schedule property was purchased on 19.3.1969 for a consideration of Rs. 6,750/- by raising funds by the sale of her property to one T. Mammu and his brother Abdul for Rs. 2,500/-. She had about 14 country boats yielding an average income of Rs. 5,000/-. Apart from this, the defendant has a tiled bunk shop fetching a monthly rent of Rs. 12/- and other shop rooms fetching daily rent of Rs. 14/-. The house in A schedule property was constructed by the first defendant raising a loan of Rs. 10,000/- sanctioned by the District Collector as per proceedings dated 25.9.1969. Permission was obtained by her for the construction of the house. Regarding the deposits in the Bank, it was only Rs. 50,000/-. She was shown as only a nominee for this amount. But Mahim had given a covering letter authorising that the first defendant would be the sole beneficiary. Hence, defendants 2 to 5 and the plaintiffs have no right over the deposit of the amount. She also contended that the amount due under the Death Cum Retirement Gratuity and under the Family Benefit Scheme, she alone had the right to receive the same. The Department has sanctioned Rs. 39,138/- to the first defendant and that amount is not an asset belonging to the deceased Mahim. Arrears of salary of Rs. 2,341.51 had been received by the first defendant and Rs. 5,313.80 had been received from the Life Insurance Department. Part of the provident fund was withdrawn by the deceased Mahim and the balance has not been received. The second defendant filed O. S. No. 235 of 1987 for restraining the first respondent from receiving the amount. That suit was dismissed. Out of the partible assets of the deceased, the first defendant was entitled to reimburse the medical expenses of Rs. 1,502.50 and Rs. 1,252.40 spent for funeral ceremonies and Rs. 700/- for Ambulance charges. The deceased had borrowed Rs. 5,000/- from one Nazer for his medical expenses. Hence, the suit is filed without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Defendants 2 to 6 filed written statement supporting the plaint claim.