GIRISH Vs. SANKARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have arisen against the common judgment in A. S. Nos. 99 and 100 of 1986 respectively on the file of the Additional District Judge, Trichur. A. S. No. 99 and 100 of 1986 had arisen against the common judgment in A. S. Nos. 1086/79 and 500/82 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Trichur.

(2.) The appellants in both the second appeals are brothers who had separately filed the above said two suits. The suits are filed for a declaration that the document executed by the mother and other major members of the joint family is null and void and also for partition. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree petitioning 1/17th share to each plaintiff (each appellant herein) in the suit property measuring 82 and odd cents. The above said common decree was reversed by the District Judge in the above said two appeals. The first respondent (first defendant) is the uncle (mother's brother) of the appellants and the second respondent (second defendant) is the mother of the appellants and the other respondents are the members of the tavazhi. The suit property is situate at Chathukudam desom, which is away from Puthenchira, where the parties are residing and it is a joint family property. Apart from the above admitted facts, the case of the appellants would be that all the joint family member designed in conspiracy, colluded and executed Ext. B1 Ozhimuri on 20.3.1964 in favour of the first respondent for a low price, viz. Rs. 1,600/- detrimental to the interest of the appellants, who were minors then and though their father was hale and healthy at that time, being the natural guardian of the appellants, he has not signed the document representing them. On the other hand, their mother, the second respondent has signed on their behalf and in fact their mother has also acted against their interest in the execution of the said document and hence it is to be declared that the document is null and void and each appellant is entitled to 1/17th share in the suit property.

(3.) Per contra, the averments of the first respondent would be that since the suit property is lying far away from their residence (family house) where all of them were residing, they could not maintain that property nor could they get any income from the property. And further, the elder brother of the first respondent was committing waste in the property and even if a partition is effected among the members of the joint family they will get only a small extent for their share which could not be useful for any purpose and in such circumstances, all the major members of the family requested him to purchase the property by way of an ozhimuri and in fact he was compelled by all the members and therefore he purchased the property by paying Rs. 1,600/- which he had saved from his salary, being a personnel in the defence service and the price of the property at Rs. 1,600/- at that time was reasonable. The above contentions of the first respondent are supported by the other respondents 4 to 14 (defendants 4 to 14).