PARANGODAN Vs. LAKSHMIKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal arises from the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 33/88 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottapalam, Eleventh defendant is the appellant herein. The suit is for partition by the 1st respondent in this appeal who is the daughter of the deceased Kuttiraman, claiming 13/22 share in the property of the said Kuttiraman. Kuttiraman died on 8 -12 -1983. Plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 are the children of Kuttiraman in the first wife the first defendant. Defendants 8 to 10 are the children of Kuttiraman in the second wife, the 7th defendant in the case. After the filing of the suit, the 5th defendant died and his legal representatives are impleaded as supplemental defendants 14 to 17 as per order in I. A. No. 909/89.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, plaint A schedule property with, the school building therein and the B schedule movables in the school belong to the first defendant and her husband Kuttiraman equally as per Ext. A1 document No. 583/1961. On the death of Kuttiraman, his half share in the properties devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendants. The remaining half share of the first defendant was assigned to the plaintiff as per Ext. A2 settlement deed 210/87 of the Sub Registry Office, Ottapalam. Therefore, the plaintiff claims 13/22 share in the property of the deceased Kuttiraman. According to her, till the death of Kuttiraman, he was the manager of the school. He was completely laid up for about 2 years prior to his death due to paralysis and plaintiff alleges that he was not having any memory power and he was under treatment. The plaintiff also alleges that Kuttiraman was staying with defendants 1, 5 and 6 and when his health condition became very bad, defendants 7 and 8 took him to their house. According to the plaintiff, at that time certain documents were created at the instance of 8th and 11th defendant nominating the 11th defendant who is the wife of the 8th defendant, appointing her as manager of the school. Thereafter, the management of the school is being conducted by the 11th defendant and her husband 8th defendant. The 11th defendant has no right in the school is the allegation in the plaint. Even though, in the plaint, the extent of plaint A schedule property is shown as 1.75 acres of land and the school therein the plaint was subsequently amended as per I. A. No. 1020/91 wherein, the plaintiff has contended that the actual extent within the 4 boundaries of plaint A schedule property is 2 acres 46 cents excluding the 8 cents surrendered for the road.

(3.) THE 8th defendant has filed a separate written statement and according to him, after the death of Kuttiraman on 8 -12 -1983, his right in the plaint schedule property and the management of the school devolved upon the 11th defendant as per Registered Will No. 89/3 of 1983 executed by his father, Kuttiraman. He has also contended that the Educational Authorities have approved the appointment of 11th defendant as manager of the school, He has totally denied the statement that the condition of Kuttiraman was serious at the time when he was removed to his house as wrongly alleged by the Plaintiff. He further contends that Kuttiraman executed the will in favour of the 11th defendant with an intention to transfer his entire rights to her. He also contends that the plaintiff is collecting the rent of the building No. 6/296 in plaint A schedule property after the death of Kuttiraman and hence prayed for a direction to the plaintiff to account for the rent collected by her and the future rent.