KUMARA PILLAI Vs. PADMAKSHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLUTCHING on to a slight ambiguity in Ext.A1 partition deed of the year 1966 and having enjoyed the benefits obtained as per that deed, the plaintiff turned against his siblings seeking additional extent of property.

(2.) THE property in question belonged to one Lakshmi Amma and Janaki Amma. Lakshmi Amma died as a spinster and Janaki Amma had children. The two ladies in 1966 thought it necessary to partition their properties so that the future dispute could be avoided. They thereby partitioned the property to two schedules namely, A and B schedules and the A schedule property was set apart to Janaki Amma and her son. B schedule property was set apart to Lakshmi Amma and the other children and grand children of Janaki Amma. The parties took possession of their respective properties and they have been in enjoyment of the same since the date of Ext.A1. The plaintiff cleverly, after having sold a major portion of the properties obtained by him under Ext.A1 thought of claiming portion B schedule property covered by Ext.A1. The contention urged is that on the death of Lakshmi Amma, since she died intestate, her share in the B schedule property devolved as per Hindu Succession Act and if that be so, the plaintiff is one of the sharers and his share is to be demarcated and possession given to him.

(3.) THE defendants resisted the suit by pointing out that Ext.A1 is in the nature of a family settlement whereby the parties concerned decided to give a quietus to a possible dispute in the family and wanted to settle the property. It is under that basis that the document was executed. It is also contended that both the parties were enjoying the property set apart as per partition as if it belonged to them. Further contention was that both Janaki Amma and Lakshmi Amma in the respective shares alloted to them had only life interest and since that right got extinguished on the death of Lakshmi Amma, nothing survives for consideration.