PANKAJAM Vs. KAMALAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST defendant in O.S.No.146/2003 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Alathur is the appellant. FIRST respondent is the plaintiff and other respondents, the other defendants in the suit. The suit was instituted for partition of the plaint schedule properties. FIRST respondent contended that Item No.1 of plaint schedule properties originally belonged to Mayu and on his death, it devolved on the only daughter Ammu. Her husband Velayudhan died eighteen years prior to the institution of the suit. Plaintiff, Karthyayani and Mayandi are their children. Appellant/first defendant is the widow and defendants 2 to 4 are the children of Mayandi. Fifth defendant is the husband and defendants 6 to 12 are the children of Karthyayani. Item No.2 of plaint schedule properties was obtained by Velayudhan. It is, therefore, contended that both the properties are available for partition and first respondent is entitled to get her share allotted.

(2.) APPELLANT filed a written statement disputing the rights of the first respondent and defendants 5 to 12, who remained ex parte before trial court. APPELLANT contended that first respondent and Karthyayani were not the sisters of Mayandi or the children of Ammu and Velayudhan and instead, they are the children of Thayu, the sister of Ammu, who was maintained by Ammu and Velayudhan as Thayu died earlier. It is contended that plaintiff and defendants 5 to 12 are not entitled to claim any share.

(3.) ARGUMENT of the learned counsel is that though Exhibit A6 was relied on by the courts below, in the light of the evidence, it should not have been found, based on Exhibit A6, that Karthyayani and first respondent are the daughters of Ammu and Velayudhan. It was argued that evidence shows that Thayu, their mother, pre-deceased Ammu. It was Ammu who brought up them and therefore, when Exhibit A6 document was executed, as insisted by Rugmini, the assignee, Karthyayani and first respondent were also made parties to the deed and in such circumstances, it should not have been found, based on Exhibit A6, that Karthyayani and first respondent are the daughters of Ammu and Velayudhan. It was argued that in spite of the admission of PW1 that electrol card and revenue records are available to show the relationship, nothing was produced and therefore, the preliminary decree is not sustainable.