K P MANI Vs. MALU AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs and the 6th defendant in O.S.No.84 of 2006 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Kozhikode-I are the appellants, aggrieved by that part of the judgment and decree of learned Additional Sub Judge-I, Kozhikodein A.S.No.185 of 2009 to the extent that claim of 2nd ap-pellant/2nd plaintiff and 6th defendant for partition of the suit property was not allowed.

(2.) The suit property belonged to one Perachan as per kanam assignment deed No.2636 of 1927. On the death of Perachan, the lease hold right devolved on his sons, Lakshmanan and Raghavan. The said Raghavan died bachelor. Thus the entire property belonged to Lakshmanan. On the death of Lakshmanan, plaintiffs and other legal heirs acquired right over the property. Plaintiffs claimed that they have 2/6th shares in the suit property. While so, their sister, Syamala assigned her l/6th share to Prabhakaran Nair and Sathiyamma as per document No.595 of 1974. That was followed by the mother of appellants/plaintiffs and 6th defendant executing release deed No.819 of 1994 (Ext.B7) in favour of Prabhakaran Nair. Appellants/plaintiffs say that at the time Ext.B7 was executed, themselves and 6th defendant were minors and that apart, 1st appellant/1st plaintiff was insane. But, it is without getting permission of the court that the mother had executed Ext.B7, release deed and hence it is not valid or binding on plaintiffs and 6th defendant. Hence they claimed partition of the suit property ignoring Ext.B7. Defendants 1 to 5 contended that suit is barred by limitation. They also contended that Ext.B7, release deed was executed by the mother being the natural guardian and karanavathy of the Tarwad for the welfare of her minor children (appellants).

(3.) Trial court accepted that plea of defendants and dismissed the suit. In appeal.