KADIYA UMMA Vs. MAYANKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 5 in O.S.No.51 of.1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri are the appellants. Suit was for partition.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts which are essential for determination of the above appeal are as follows: The properties described as Schedule II-B in the plaint originally belonged to one Assankutty. Assankutty died in. 1968 without any male issue. Defendants 1 to 5 are his daughters and Kathiyakutty Umma was his wife. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 5, Kathiyakutty and Assankutty's brothers, 1st plaintiff, 10th defendant, 2nd plaintiffs father deceased Mohammed and one Ahammad, father of defendants 11 and 12are the legal heirs of Assankutty, who are entitled to succeed to the assets of deceased Assankutty. They also alleged that they came to know of the execution of Exts.B2 and B3 gift deeds in favour of defendants 1 to 5 only through the reply sent by defendants 1 to 5. According to them, during the life time of Assankutty, plaint schedule items were not given possession and till his death, Assankutty was in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and was residing in the building in item 2 of plaint schedule property. They also alleged that the gift deeds did not take effect and they are not binding on them and if any such gift deeds were executed by Assankutty in favour of defendants 1 to 5, it was done under fraud, coercion and undue influence with a view to defeat the legitimate rights of the plaintiffs and other legal representatives.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 5 in their written statement contended that since items 1 and 2 were gifted to them under Exts. Bl and B3 and they took possession pursuant to those documents, plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief.