BOZA Vs. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. 103 of 1977. Plaintiff filed the suit for partition claiming share in the suit property from defendants 1 and 2 her brothers. Parties are Christians governed by the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092, M.E. Plaintiff contended that at the time of her marriage in 1958 no Streedhanam or ornaments were given to her, that she continued to be in joint possession of the family property and that she is entitled to separate possession of 1/3 share. Defendants 1 and 2 refuted the allegations in the plaint and contended inter alia that plaintiff has no joint possession of the plaint schedule property and that the suit is barred by limitation.

(2.) The Trial Court by judgment dated 30-3-1992 held that the plaintiff was not given Streedhanam or gold ornaments at the time of her marriage, that she has been in joint possession of the plaint schedule property and that she is entitled to a share in it. Lower Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff was not given streedhanam or ornaments at the time of her marriage but held that she cannot claim any share in the property alongwith her brothers and her claim can only be limited to the amount which she is entitled to by way of Streedhanam and the case was remanded to the Trial Court. After remand the plaint was amended and it was converted as a suit for money claim for Rs.5,000/-. The Trial Court decreed the suit by judgment dated 13-2-1984. Against that, defendants filed A.S. 97 of 1985. The Principal Sub Judge, Parur allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit having found that the plaint claim is barred by limitation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that plaintiff's claim of the Streedhanam amount cannot be said to be barred by limitation in view of S.10 of the Limitation Act. Counsel maintains that as the Streedhanam amount due to the plaintiff was not paid by defendants they should be deemed to be holding the property on trust and if that be so the suit is not barred by limitation. It is also urged by him that plaintiff should be construed as a coowner till the amount due to her has been paid and on that score also the suit is not barred by limitation.