JOSE Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been placed before us on a reference made by R. Bhaskaran, J.

(2.) The question that is posed for consideration is whether limited interest of a daughter would get enlarged to full right after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 when a male Hindu following the Mitakshara law died before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act

(3.) Suit was instituted for partition of 6/7 share in the plaint schedule property and for recovery of plaintiffs share from defendants 1 and 2 and for mesne profits. Plaint schedule property is having only an extent of 12 cents belonged to one Madan Bhagavathy along with the adjacent property having a total extent of 20 cents. The property was self acquired property of Madan Bhagavathy as per Ext. A2 dated 19.9.1064 (M.E.). Kunjan Pillai and Chempakakuty Amma were his children. Chempakakutty Amma sold the entire 30 cents of property inclusive of the plaint schedule property to third defendant, vide Ext. B3 sale deed dated 19.9.1959. Third defendant has subsequently sold 8 3/4 cents of property as per Ext. B2 dated 17.5.1974. He also sold another 1 1/2 cents as per Ext. B2 dated 16.12.1974 in favour of the first defendant. Chempakakutty Amma and her brother Kunjan Pillai later executed settlement deed Ext. A1 dated 19.11.1959 in favour of wife and children of Kunjan Pillai as well as the children by the two daughters of Kunjan Pillai. Plaint schedule property was settled in favour of fourth defendant and her children who are the plaintiffs in the suit. Third defendant is the husband of the fourth defendant. Plaintiffs contended that by Ext. A1 they got title to the property and are entitled to recover the same from defendants 1 and 2.