CHALAMBATTIL BALAN Vs. CHALAMBATTIL SREEDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this round, we are concerned only with item No. 1 in the plaint schedule. The suit is one for partition. Following earlier order of remit, the claim of the Plaintiffs for share in item No. 1 was tried again by the trial court. Their plea was repelled Plaintiffs, therefore, appealed. The learned Single Judge held that the two Plaintiffs were together entitled to 1/3 share in plaint A schedule item No. 1, which is hereinafter referred to as the "suit property" and the remaining 2/3 shall go to the first Defendant, ignoring the transfer made by the father of the parties in favour of the first Defendant. This was done by treating that the suit property was ancestral property in the hands of the father of the parties and that, he had transferred his 1/3 share to the first Defendant and hence, the remaining would go as stated above.

(2.) Parangodan II is the son of Parangodan I. Choyikutty and Kanaran were the sons of Parangodan II. Kanaran died before 1926 leaving behind a son then aged around two years. He is Parangodan III. Later on, Choyikutty married the second Defendant and the two Plaintiffs and the first Defendant were born to them.

(3.) Ittirarappan Nair and Chennan Nair, whom together we shall call "Nairs" hereinafter, made Ext.A-5, a lease (Kanam assignment) on 12-6-1877 in favour of one Parangodan. Twenty two years thereafter, Ext. A-6, a renewal lease was made on 18-1-1899 by the Nairs in favour of a Parangodan. As we proceed, we will notice that one of the controversies, or, the only one ultimately, to be resolved is as to whether Ext. A-5 lease by the Nairs was in favour of Parangodan I or Parangodan II.