PAPPU Vs. SEKHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st defendant contested. He admitted that plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 36 constituted an undivided tarwad as alleged by the plaintiffs. His main contention was that items other than 1 to 7 were his self-acquisitions and that the plaintiffs were entitled to get maintenance only out of the income of items 1 to 7 in the plaint schedule. According to him the sakha had no properties until items 1 to 3 which were acquisitions by a common karnavan Perumal Nilakantan were obtained in partition after his death, by the sakha to which the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 36 belong. Kumara Bhagavathy was the karnavan of this branch and he was managing the affairs of the Sakha till he died on 19. 6. 1093. Items 4 to 7 which were the acquisitions of Kumara bhagavathy were obtained by the Sakha as per partition deed dated 28. 6. 1095. He became karanavan only after the death of Kumara Bhagavathy. THE annual income of these properties namely items 1 to 7 was only Rs. 287/ -. This was insufficient for the maintenance of the members of the tarwad and he had to spend his private funds for this purpose, as well as for effecting valuable improvements in the properties. In paragraphs 18 to 29 of the written statement, he gave details regarding the acquisition of items 8 to 50 which were claimed as his own. He claimed to have effected valuable improvements in items 1 to 9 of which he claimed the value in respect of improvements in items 1 to 7. He denied the other allegations in the plaint and stated that he had no objection in the plaintiffs being awarded maintenance at the rate of 31/2 Fs. per mensem, which could also be charged on items 1 to 7, subject to his claim for compensation for improvements.

(2.) A replication was filed by the plaintiffs wherein they stated their case with greater clarity and detail than the plaint. The averments in the replication are the following: Item No. 8 in the plaint schedule was obtained on lease by Kumara Bhagavathy the karnavan of the Sakha prior to 1070 M. E. , buildings were constructed in item No. 8 excluding an area of 521/2 cents there in and his sister Chakkikali (mother of the 1st defendant)and her children were allowed to take the yield for their maintenance. All this was done to found a Sakha Tarwad known as Kochu Nammian Thitta. The management of the Sakha was attended to by Chakkikali and the 1st defendant initially and later on by the 1st defendant alone. With the income from this property as well as the income which accrued by the labour of the members of the Sakha, items 9 and 10 and the mortgage right in items 11 to 16 were acquired for the Sakha. In 1076 items 1 to 3 and a sum of 4816 9/16 fanams were obtained in partition of karanavan Perumal Nilakandan's assets and these went to the hands of the 1st defendant who was manager at that time. With this amount as well as the income of the other properties, Otti and Kuzhikanom rights over item No. 8 were acquired. In 1093 Kumara Bhagavathy died and by the subsequent partition of his assets, the Sakha obtained items 4 to 7. With the income of all these properties items 17 to 43 were acquired including registry of items 32 to 43. Item no. 44 formed part of items 19 to 43 but the 1st defendant fraudulently purchased the same in the name of his brother-in-law. Items 45 to 47 were acquired for the Sakha utilising the available finds of the Sakha and items 48 to 50 also belong to the Sakha. Plaintiffs were not aware of any mortgage relating to items 45 to 47 and even if there was any such mortgage, it was not binding on the plaintiffs. The release alleged to have been taken by the 1st defendant from his mother Chakkikali is fraudulent, invalid and not binding on the other members. The other allegations in the 1st defendant's written statement were also denied.

(3.) IT may be useful to mention at the outset the relationship of the parties. The karnavan of the common tarwad was Perumal nilakandan. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 36 belong to a sakha of which the ancestress was Perumal Nilakandan's sister Chakki who had a son Kumara Bhagavathy and a daughter Chakkikali. The latter had 3 daughters mathevi, Kali (2nd defendant) and Kurumba and one son the 1st defendant. Mathevai was married to Kochucherukan. The 1st plaintiff and defendants 21 to 34 are descendants of Mathevi. The 2nd daughter Kali, i. e. , 2nd defendant, was married to Nilakandan Sankaran, the 2nd plaintiff and defendants 3 to 20 being 2nd defendant's descendants. Defendants 35 and 36 are the descendants of the 3rd sister Kurumba. Perumal Nilakandan died on 12. 5. 1074 and Kumara Bhagavathy on 19. 6. 1093.