LAWS(KER)-2010-12-469

MAYA SIVA SANKAR Vs. SATHI

Decided On December 20, 2010
MAYA SIVA SANKAR Appellant
V/S
SATHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ambujakshy Amma and Madhava Menon had only one son, Jayaraja Menon @ Rajan Menon. The plaintiffs are his daughters through Sarasija @ Omanakunjamma. The parents of the plaintiffs were granted divorce as per Ext. B6 order dated 18.12.1981 by the competent court on an application under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, after fairly long drawn contentious proceedings for divorce even before this Court. Thereafter, Rajan Menon married the first defendant on 16.6.1982 (Ext. B5 is the marriage certificate). He, thereafter, died on 17.1.1983. The second defendant was born to the first defendant and Rajan Menon. There is no dispute on this. In 1993, that is, more than 10 years after the demise of Rajan Menon, the plaintiffs. sued for partition of what they described as the estate left behind by Rajan Menon.

(2.) In answer, the defendants contended that Rajan Menon had executed Exts. B3 and B4 in favour of the plaintiffs on 23.4.1981, and it was on that consensus, that the mother of the plaintiffs agreed for the divorce and Exts. B3 and B4 were executed essentially in terms of that family settlement, as a result of which, the plaintiffs had no right to inherit any part of the estate of Rajan Menon. The plea was that the allotments made under Exts. B3 and B4 were in lieu of the share and those documents amount to deprivation of the plaintiffs right to any further claim for share in Rajan Menon's estate.

(3.) The court below accepted the defence version, having regard to the evidence on record. In construing Exts. B3 and B4, it took the view that those transactions resulted out of a family settlement and the plaintiffs, having enjoyed the benefits of Exts. B3 and B4, are not eligible to sue for partition of the left over. The court below has also indicated in the judgment that Exts. B3 and B4 could also be treated as testaments by Rajan Menon, in as much as they contain clear intendments which may amount to bequests and those documents are proved by DW 3, one of the attesters.