MANAFUDHEEN Vs. ARIFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Among the two appeals above, which have been heard and disposed of together on account of the fact that both of them arise from the same judgment and decree of the Court of the Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda; R.F.A. No. 607/2015 having been filed by defendants 1, 3 and 4, while R.F.A. No. 606/2015 having been filed by the fifth defendant, who had made a counter claim but which now stands dismissed.

(2.) The aforementioned suit had been filed by Smt. Arifa, who is the wife of deceased Moidheen Haji and she claims 1/4th right over the plaint schedule properties. According to her, late Moidheen Haji had a brother who had predeceased him and therefore, that his wife and children, who are the defendants in the suit, are only entitled to one-half of the property. She, however, submitted that in order to find a quietus to the disputes between the parties, she is willing to confine her share to 1/4th of the properties and thus prayed for separate allotment of the same in the suit.

(3.) The afore claim of Smt. Arifa was opposed by defendants 1, 3 and 4, who are the wife and sons of the brother of late Moidheen Haji, by filing a written statement, wherein, they contended that the extent of the plaint schedule properties are not correct and further that the fourth defendant is entitled to the benefit of reservation with respect to item No. 2 of the plaint schedule property, in which he had constructed a building with the permission of all the others. The second defendant, who is the daughter of the brother of late Moidheen Haji, filed a written statement conceding that a preliminary decree may be passed as per the plaint claim, but she died pending the lis and her children, namely defendants 6, 7 and 8, came on record and filed a separate written statement adopting the earlier written statement filed by the said defendant.