JOSEPH ANNAMMA Vs. KORA THRESSIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND defendant married the first plaintiff on 23-3-1107. A few days before, the second plaintiff who is the father of the first plaintiff is said to have paid to the second defendant's father a sum of Rs. 4000/- as streedhanam. Second defendant's father Avirah Korah who is said to have thus received the streedhanam died in 1117. Even during his lifetime he had executed Ext. D-1 dhanani-schayam on 15-12-1109 settling his properties in favour of his children defendants 1 to 3. First defendant was his daughter and defendants 2 and 3 were his sons. Though Ext. D-l was so executed it is said to have not taken effect. After his death defendants 1 to 3 and their mother got together and entered into an arrangement of partition evidenced by Ext. P-2 partition deed dated 22-7-1117. The properties of Avirah Korah were divided thereunder. It is seen from the partition deed that the first defendant, daughter of Avirah korah, was allotted 23-94 acres of property while the second defendant was allotted 42 acres of property. Out of the property so obtained by the second defendant he executed a mortgage for some on 28-8-1953 under Ext. P-3. This was in favour of a stranger. In regard to some of the properties he executed a sale deed in favour of his wife. This was Ext. D-2 dated 2-2-1955. Apparently Rs. 5000/-was received in cash while reserving a sum of Rs, 9980/-, Later on 14-21955, the first plaintiff took a release of the mortgage under Ext. D-5. In regard to a portion of his remaining properties, namely, 10 acres second defendant is seen to have executed a dhananischayam deed, which is Ext. D-3 dated 13-6-1956.

(2.) THE first plaintiff and her father have together filed this suit on 31-8-1960 seeking recovery of the streedhanam paid in 1107. It is necessary in this connection to refer to the relief sought in the plaint which I have referred to as recovery because there is controversy as to whether it is really one for recovery. Plaintiffs claim that the second plaintiff should be allowed to recover the sum of rs. 4000/- and the costs of the suit with interest thereon charged on the plaint schedule properties. The property scheduled to the plaint is a portion of the property allotted to the first defendant, the daughter, under Ext. P-2 partition deed. Therefore, apparently it can be seen that the relief sought for is against the property and that of the property of the first defendant only. Therefore even though the second defendant and the 3rd defendant got properties under Ext. P-2, it is only the first defendant who is sought to be made liable, though not personally, that is, by scheduling her properties alone as answerable for the plaint claim. There is no explanation in the plaint why that is so limited to the properties of the first defendant.

(3.) THOUGH the fact that streedhanam of Rs. 4000/- paid was disputed, the Courts below have, on the evidence, found that the payment of streedhanam is true. In this context it is necessary to refer to the normal incidents of a streedhanam and the obligations which are attendant on the payment of streedhanam. I cannot put it better than in the words of the learned Judges who decided Mathula Louis V. Eapen Rosa, (1916) 6 Trav LJ 464: