PANAKKAL RAJENDRAN Vs. M. SREENIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this Second Appeal filed by the defendants in a suit for partition:--

(2.) Admittedly the properties in respect of which a preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court and which was confirmed by the appellate Court belonged to deceased Kelu. Kelu died in the year 1945. He left behind his widow Chiruthakutty and his two children, Radha and respondent (Sreenivsan) who were then minors. In the plaint the entire property covered by Ext. A1 were not included. But in the written statement filed by the defendant a schedule showing all properties covered by Ext. A1 was incorporated. Plaintiff contended that the remaining property shown in Ext. A1 was excluded from claiming partition since that property was an agricultural land and as such it was entitled to be exempted. But the courts below found that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the excluded portion was an agricultural land. The courts below have given cogent and convincing reason to hold that the property which was sought to be excluded from partition was not an agricultural land. No evidence whatsoever was adduced by the plaintiff to show that it was an agricultural land so as to get exclusion from partition. That finding is not very much in dispute now.

(3.) The fact that the entire properties in respect of which preliminary decree was passed are available for partition is not in dispute now. The main thrust of the argument advanced by Sri. R. Sudheesh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the courts below went wrong in interpreting Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Admittedly, the plaintiff and defendants are Thiyyas of North Malabar following Hindu Mitakshara Law of Inheritance. Kelu died in the year 1945 after the commencement of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937.