NEETHUMOL THOMAS Vs. VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the 2nd plaintiff in a suit for partition. The appellant herein, who is the 2nd plaintiff and her sister, first plaintiff claimed to be the daughters of deceased Thomas, who had /6 share in the plaint schedule 1 th properties. Defendants 1 to 5 are the brothers and sisters of deceased Thomas. It was contended that deceased Thomas had married the mother of the plaintiffs and in that wedlock, the plaintiffs were born. Their mother was impleaded as the 6th respondent in this appeal. Thus the plaintiffs sought for a partition and for allotment of their share. The claim was resisted by the 8th defendant. 7th defendant is her mother. It is stated that 7th defendant is a mentally challenged person. It was contended that the 7th defendant was married by deceased Thomas in accordance with the customary rites prevalent in the Christian community and in that wedlock, 8th defendant was born to her. It was further contended that the marital relationship between deceased Thomas and 7th defendant was subsisting and so there could be no legal marriage between deceased Thomas and the 6th defendant. It was thus contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to get any share in the plaint schedule properties.

(2.) BEFORE the trial court, first plaintiff was examined as PW1 and another witness was examined as PW2 and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. 2nd defendant was examined as DW1 and another witness was examined as DW2. Exts.X1 and X2 were marked.

(3.) THE appeal was filed with a delay of 1035 days which on subsequent calculation was found to be 1430 days. The lower appellate court found that no sufficient reason was put forward for condonation of delay and so, the petition was dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.