DEVAKI Vs. KOCHUNARAYANAN ELAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of properties with mesne profits. Plaint schedule properties belonged to one Rudran Narayanan Elayad of Messery Illom. Defendants 1 to 18 are members of that Illom. There was a partition in the Illom on 25th Makaram 1103 by which Narayanan Elayad got tot the plaint schedule properties. He married plaintiffs mother, Kavukutty Kunjamma, on 18th Kumbhom 1101. Plaintiff is the only issue from that marriage. Kavukutty Kunjamma was a Nair lady. She died while the plaintiff was a minor. Narayanan Elayad died intestate on 23rd Karkadagom 1119. According to the plaintiff the plaint schedule properties devolved on her as the sole heir of Narayanan Elayad. Defendants 1, 8, 12, 15 and 17 are said to have taken possession of plaint schedule items 4 to 6. Items 1 to 3 are in the possession of defendants 19 and 20 as mortgagees of Narayana Elayad. Plaintiff sued for recovery of possession of the properties with mesne profits, past and future. Defendants 21 and 22 were subsequently impleaded in the suit.

(2.) Defendants 15, 21 and 22 contested the suit. The 15th defendant contended that Narayanan Elayad had not married plaintiffs mother, that plaintiff is not the daughter of Narayanan Elayad, and that she is not entitled to any right in his properties. It was also contended that Narayanan Elayad had married one Naniamma Kavamma of Vadakkae Kaivilakkil on 20th Mithunam 1090 and that the 21st defendant is his daughter by that marriage. It was further contended that in any case the daughters of Narayanan Elayad are entitled only to one-half of his properties. The 21st defendant contended that Narayanan Elayad had married her mother, Naniamma Kavamma, that she is the daughter of Narayanan Elayad, that he has not married the plaintiffs mother, and that she (21st defendant) alone is entitled to the properties of Narayanan Elayad. The 22nd defendant contended that the plaintiff was entitled only to one-half right in the properties of Narayanan Elayad, that the other half devolved on the first defendant, that one-half of the right of the first defendant was sold in court auction in O.S. No. 99 of 1111 of the Parur Munsiffs Court and purchased by him and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of that one-half right.

(3.) The two main questions that arose for decision in the case were: (1) whether the plaintiff is the daughter of Narayanan Elayad or whether the 21st defendant is his daughter; and (2) What right the plaintiff is entitled to in the properties left by Narayanan Elayad. The court below found that the plaintiffs mother, Kavukutty Kunjamma, was married according to law by Narayanan Elayad on 18th Kumbham 1101 and that plaintiff was born of that marriage. It was also found that the 21st defendants mother, Naniamma Kavamma, was not married by Narayanan Elayad. On the second point the court below held that the plaintiff is entitled only to one-half right in the properties left by Narayanan Elayad and not to the whole of the properties as claimed by her. It was accordingly declared that the plaintiff was entitled to one-half share in the plaint schedule properties and she was allowed to recover possession of one-half of items 4 to 6 with mesne profits past and future.