HABUBU ABDULLA Vs. SANKARAN VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) May be, marriages are made in Heaven. The problems they generate however, are mostly mundane. That was so, when nearly a century back the House of Lords deliberated over the issues arising out of the marriage of a septuagenarian priest; and when a Full Bench of the Travancore High Court discussed the obligations of a Nambudiri youth who formed a union with a Nair girl in her sweet seventeen. Narayana Narayanarao v. Kunjikutty Kutty 20 TLR 65. The stories of the adventurous Scottish Barrister as unfolded in Shaw v. Gould (1868) LR 3 HL 55 = 37 LJ Ch. 433 and of an equally adventurous Banker in Alleppey as revealed from Sreekumari v. Radhamany Amma ILR 1976 (1) Ker. 605 , have the same theme. It has been given to lawyers and law courts to settle the disputes or resolve the controversies. This second appeal is one such case and concerns the status of and the right to property of one of the members of an ancient and historic family in the State, the Kilimanoor Palace a Kshatriya family of "Koil Thampurans". The valour of one of its members brought it in 1728 vast areas of land from the Travancore throne (to be lost later by the legislative enactment, the Travancore-Cochin Act 27 of 1955). It gave shelter and asylum to Velu Thampi Delwa, who fiercely fought against the English, and received from him his heroic sword (to be handed over in 1957 to the President of India).

(2.) The subject matter of this appeal is now restricted to plaint B and C schedule properties; and the events leading to the second appeal are fairly recent. They start from the time of Anizham Thirunal Thampuratti. (The persons, men and women of the family, are generally known by the stars under which they are born; for, the stellar system appears to have had dominant influence in their lives and beliefs). Anizham Thirunal Thampuratti had, as her sons, Raja Raja Varma Chothi Thirunal Kochu Koyithampuran and Chathayarn Thirunal Ravi Varma Koyithampuran. The latter was the younger of the sons. Chothi Thirunal married from the Travancore Royal family. In 1054 M.E. (1878-79) while a junior member, he got rights over the properties, to be augmented later (in 1073 M.E. 1898 A.D.) by the document Ext. P-7, the rights obtained thereunder resulting in vertual ownership over the property by force of the legislative provisions of the Travancore Jenmi Kudiyan (Amendment Regulation), 1108. Anizham Thirunal Thampuratti and Chothi Thirunal predeceased the Chathayam Thirunal, who became the only surviving member of the family. Chathayam Thirunal married a Nair lady. The 1st defendant was born to them. The marriage did not last long. The 1st defendant's mother passed away, according to available evidence, between the years 1070 and 1077 M.E.

(3.) In the year 1105, the 1st defendant's father executed the mortgage Ext. P-1 dated 20th Kumbham 1105 in favour of the 1st defendant for a sum of Rs. 3,500. Properties were put in possession of the 1st defendant mortgagee. The 1st defendant's father passed away in the year 1111 M.E. (3rd March, 1930 A.D.)