PARVATHI Vs. RAMUNNI KARAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal, his suit for partition having been dismissed by the District Judge of Trichur. The parties are Makkathayee Eazhuvas of the Trichur Taluk. Plaintiff is the daughter of Paran who was the second of the 4 sons of Sankaran. Paran had a son, Krishnan by name. In Meenom 1091 there was a partition in the family between the three sons of Sankaran, the 4th son Paran having been no more by that time. At that partition properties were divided into two, one moiety was allotted to Ravunni and the plaintiff's brother Krishnan, who was then a minor, and the other moiety to Kittunni and Raman who are the other two sons of Sankaran. Within 3 months of this partition, there was a further partition between Ravunni and Krishnan, of the properties they obtained under the earlier partition. Krishnan being a minor even then, he was represented by his uncle Kittunni as guardian. On attaining majority, Krishnan accepted the partition and assigned the properties allotted to him to his uncle Ravunni's son Karappan who is the 1st defendant in the case. Krishnan died in the year 1111 unmarried. Plaintiff brought the suit in the year 1123 accepting the partition of Meenam 1091 and claiming half of the share allotted thereat to Ravunni and Krishnan, because she and Krishnan were entitled to it as heirs of their father and Krishnan having died issueless, she became solely entitled to it.

(2.) The plaintiff's claim was resisted on the ground that she is not entitled to claim a share at all having been married away into another family. It is also contended that the claim is barred by limitation and adverse possession.

(3.) The courts below, upon the evidence, reached the conclusion that daughters in the community to which the parties belong are not entitled to share in the father's properties according to the custom prevalent among them. Reliance was placed upon the decision of a Full Bench of the Cochin High Court reported in 25 Cochin 584 which was a decision rendered after a very elaborate enquiry into the matter which clearly disclosed the custom in the community in that part of the country. Even in the evidence of the plaintiff there are admissions to the effect that daughters in the community are not generally given shares in the father's property. The Court below also found that actual possession was given to the first defendant pursuant to the assignment by Krishnan and that the suit having been brought more than 12 years thereafter, was barred by limitation.