LAWS(KER)-1983-11-33

KARUVATHODI JANAKI AMMA Vs. LAKSHMI AMMA

Decided On November 21, 1983
Karuvathodi Janaki Amma Appellant
V/S
LAKSHMI AMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal demonstrates how sometimes, for a little bit of property, all principles of morality could be thrown to the winds, and truth could be callously made a casuality in a legal fight.

(2.) The question arising in the second appeal is whether there was a valid marriage, way back about the year 1916 between the Ist plaintiff Kunhikrishna Panicker and Lashmikutty Amma of Panampatta Ayyappankalathil, sister of the Ist defendant. While the plaintiff would contend that he had married Lakshmikutty Amma and had lived with her ever thereafter, till death did part them on 19-3-1144 M. E. (corresponding to 1-11-1968), the 1st defendant imposed upon the plaintiff another lady by name Mani Amma of Kunnathodiyil as his wife. The written statement is silent as to whether Lakshamikutty Amma was married, and if so, who her husband had been.

(3.) It is not disputed that if the marriage as urged by the plaintiffs' is valid, the Ist plaintiff would be the sole heir of Lakshmikutty Amma. In that event the plaintiff could rightly succeed to the property allotted to Lakshmikutty Amma in the partition of the tarwad, entered into between Lakshmikutty Amma and the Ist defendant. The courts below have concurred to hold that the plaintiffs' case has been established to the hilt by abundance of documentary and oral evidence. On the basis of the evidence in the case, it is inconceivable that another view could be taken. Ext. A9 is the registered will executed as back as on 1-8-1934 by the Ist plaintiff and another person wherein Lakshmikutty Amma is described as the wife of the Ist plaintiff. It contains the names of the legatees who were directed to pay a sum to Lakshmikutty Amma within six months of the death of the 1st plaintiff. There are three more wills executed by the Ist plaintiff, Ext. A2 dated 20-10-1950, Ext. A1 dated 8-11-1962 and Ext. A3 dated 3-12-1965, wherein the Ist plaintiff figures as a testator and Lakshmikutty Amma is described as the wife of the Ist plaintiff. Provisions are made therein for payment to Lakshmikutty Amma. A diabolic suggestion that the description of Lakshmikutty Amma as his wife and the provisions for payment to her were self-serving statements, had been rightly discarded by the courts below. It is unimaginable that a person would execute documents many years (in one case nearly 35 years) before the controversy arose and that too in a manner which would affect his interests in the event of his death. Ext. A5 is a voters' list wherein names of Lakshmikutty Amma and of the Ist defendant appear. Lakshmikutty Amma Kunhikrishna Panicker is serial No. 76, the name Kunhikrishna Panicker being given within brackets. Similarly, as against the name of the Ist defendant the name of her husband Narayanan Nair is given. The Ist defendant admitted in her evidence that the name Narayanan Nair contained within brackets against her name in the voters' list is that of her husband. She had, however, to pretend ignorance about the name of Kunhikrishna Panicker. In such a desperate situation, the first defendant had uttered another lie to the effect that one Krishnan Nair was the husband of Lakshmikutty Amma. Yet another telltale item of evidence was a group photo taken, Ext. A4. Though the negative of the photograph was not produced, secondary evidence was given about the same, both by the Ist plaintiff as P.W. 1 and by his nephew as P.W. 2. The evidence of P.W. 2 that he had been employed in Mangalore, is not disputed. P.W. 1 has given evidence of his having gone to Mangalore for training in Ayurveda when he had taken his wife Lakshmikutty Amma with him. The certificate Ext. A7 would corroborate his evidence on that aspect. P.W.2 was admittedly employed in Mangalore. He has given evidence of his uncle, the plaintiff herein, and Lakshmikutty Amma, the wife of the plaintiff, residing with them at Mangalore and that during that stay, a photograph of the plaintiff and his wife and other members of the family of P.W. 2 was taken. That evidence found acceptance by both the courts. The photograph is one which would very much stare at the face of the Ist defendant recklessly making false allegations about her sister Lakshmikutty Amma and about her marriage. One such wild allegation of the Ist defendant in her evidence was that the Ist plaintiff was married to one Nani Amma of Kunnathodiyil. It was, however, demonstrated that the Ist defendant could not face a pointed cross examination on that aspect. A specific suggestion was made to her that Nani Amma referred to by her as the wife of the 1st plaintiff was really married to Poonthottathil Kunjukrishnan Nair, that that couple had three children Thankam, Kunhilaksmi and Raju, and that Kunhukrishnan Nair died about three years prior to her examination; she could not deny. She had, in the face of severe examination, to confess that her allegation of Lakshmikutty Amma having been married to one Kunhukrishnan Nair was based on hearsay. The evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 were rightly rejected as totally unreliable by both the courts below. P.W. 1, when he was examined, was aged about 82. He had given clear evidence about his marriage with Lakshmikutty Amma when he was aged 28. The evidence is perfectly convincing and it appealed to be so to the courts below. I have no hesitation in upholding the appraisal of his evidence by the courts below and their holding that the Ist plaintiff's evidence is absolutely true. As already noted above, his evidence has been fully corroborated by contemporary documentary evidence.