KOOPAYIL SANTHA Vs. C.K. SAVITHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.583 of 2007 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kannur is aggrieved by the decree for recovery of possession of the suit property, a building, as confirmed by learned Additional Sub Judge, Thalassery in A.S.No.10 of 2009 and has preferred this Second Appeal.

(2.) IF the case of the respondent were true, it would appear that the appellant joined the late Lakshmanan as his maid servant and later assumed the role of his wife even at a time when his legally wedded wife was alive, not to say that the marriage of the appellant with one Valsalan was also subsisting. It would appear that Lakshmanan was staying away from the respondent, his legally wedded wife and their children for sometime during which time the appellant joined him as above stated. It would also appear that Lakshmanan had nominated the appellant as his nominee in some of the life insurance policies even describing her as his wife. While so, Lakshmanan died on 12.03.2007. That was followed by the respondent filing O.S.No.583 of 2007 for recovery of possession of the building mentioned in the plaint schedule claiming that the said building belonged to the late Lakshmanan, he died intestate and on his death, that building devolved on the respondent. It is also the case of the respondent that Lakshmanan had permitted the appellant to stay in the building in the suit property and that permission came to an end by the death of Lakshmanan.

(3.) THE learned Munsiff found that the appellant could not claim the status of a legally wedded wife since her marriage with Valsalan and the marriage of the late Lakshmanan with the respondent were subsisting on the day Lakshmanan is said to have married the appellant.