NARAYANI AMMA Vs. SANKARA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been referred to a Full Bench for decision, by the following order;

(2.) The suit was to set aside a deed of partition and for recovery of possession of immovable properties in case the defendants trespassed on the same after suit or were found to be in possession. The properties which form the subject matter of the suit were acquired in the name of Mathevi Kali (deceased). She had two sons, Padmanabhan and Raman, and three daughters, Bhagavathy, Lekshmi (first defendant) and Narayani. Bhagawathi had five daughters including the first plaintiff; the other daughters are not parties to the suit. Padmanabhan had not married but he and Raman were having one wife, Gouri, in common. Gouris children are defendants 2 to 6. Defendants 8 to 10 are the children of Lekshmi. Narayani died without issue. On 23-2-1100 Padmanabhan, Raman and Lekshmi executed a partition deed Ext. A in respect of the properties which stood in the name of their deceased mother Mathevi Kali and this deed is sought to be set aside in this suit. The plaintiffs case is that the parties who belong to the Sree Bandara or Sree Pandara Chetti community in Trivandrum are governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law modified by custom and that female members who are married in the approved or thalikettu form lose all rights in their family while those married in the sambandhom form retain interest in their original family. According to the plaintiff, Bhagawathy alone among the three daughters of Mathevi Kali was married in the sambandhom form while the other sisters were married in the thalikettu form and of the daughters of Bhagawathi, all except the plaintiff were married in the thalikettu form, the plaintiff alone having been married in the sambandhom form. It is also alleged that the properties belonged to Mathevi Kali as her stridhanam property and that the same devolved on the plaintiff as the other female members had lost their rights to the same, having been married in the thalikettu form. The plaintiff had an alternative case that in case this custom was not found, it should be held that the parties were governed by marumakkathayam law and that the partition deed which was not assented to by all the members was to be treated as inoperative. The property obtained by Padmanabhan in partition was thereafter gifted by him to the 7th defendant who is the wife of the fifth defendant, and this gift deed was also sought to be set aside. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs son got impleaded as additional second plaintiff.

(3.) Written statements were filed by defendants 1, 3, 5 and 7. The first defendant contended that the parties were governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law. She denied the custom pleaded by the plaintiffs regarding the two forms of marriage and the effect of the same in the matter of inheritance and succession. She also denied the allegation that the parties were governed by marumakkathayam law. Another contention was that the properties did not belong to Mathevi Kali in whose name they stood and that the same were acquired by the husband of Mathevi Kali for the benefit of the family. The plaintiff and her sisters to whom property had been allotted under the partition were stated to have accepted the arrangement and taken possession of their shares. It was also contended that the suit was barred by adverse possession and limitation. The contentions of defendants 3, 5 and 7 were more or less the same as those raised by the first defendant.