LATHIKA KARTHIKEYAN Vs. G S LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise from the common judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Thrissur in two appeals, A.S. Nos. 415 and 502 of 1999, which in turn arise from the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Principal Munsiff, Thrissur in O.S. No. 471 of 1984, a suit for partition.

(2.) The appeal, R.S.A. No. 415 of 2003 is filed by defendants 9 to 11 in the suit, who are the widow and children of the 1st defen-dant, who had passed away pending the suit. The other two appeals, R.S.A. Nos. 517 and 588 of 2003, both of them are filed by de-fendants 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 in the suit jointly. They have filed the above appeals separately as against the common judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court in A.S. Nos. 415 and 502 of 1999. One second appeal alone would have been sufficient as the two first appeals arose from the decision rendered in a single suit, but, these appellants have chosen to file two separate appeals.

(3.) Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8, who alone were present in the party array when the suit was laid, are the children of one Sankunni Vaidiar, and they belong to Hindu Perumannan Community. Sankunni Vaidiar, their father, died on 16-3-1954, and their mother, Kunhikutty passed away on 19-5-1982. Suit properties originally belonged to the father of Sankunpi Vaidiar, namely, Kuttan Vaidiar. Kuttan Vaidiar had executed a Will, by which, the properties were be-queathed in favour of his two sons, Sankunni Vaidiar and Govindhan Vaidiar. After the death of Sankunni Vaidiar, according to the plaintiff, whatever rights he had over the property devolved upon his wife and chil-dren. Kunhikutty, the mother of the parties having passed away, it was alleged, her right over the properties also devolved equally upon the children, the parties to the suit. Set-ting forth a case that there was a partition of the properties as between the legal heirs of Sankunni Vaidiar and Govindhan Vaidiar, his brother, and the property described in the suit had been set apart towards the share of the wife and children of Sankunni Vaidiar, and claiming to be in joint possession of such properties with the other co-owners, the plaintiff sought for division of her l/9th share and separate possession in the suit.