BALAKRISHNA WARRIER Vs. SREEDHARA WARRIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st defendant & the 1st plaintiff are brothers. THE 4th defendant is their sister. THE 7th defendant is the husband of the 4th defendant; and defendants 2,3 and 5 are their children. THE 6th defendant is the daughter of the 5th defendant. THEy belong to a Variyar tarwad. THE community normally follows the Marumakkavazhi system of succession, except when a member marries in the 'kudivaippu' form, taking the wife to the husband's house to reside there permanently, in which case he will be entitled to claim partition, and succession to him will be under the Makkavazhi system.

(2.) THE plaint includes five Schedules of properties: schedules A and B enumerate tarwad properties; Schedule E properties that belonged to the tarwad, but have been, subsequent to the date of Ext. P-2, exchanged for properties shown in Schedule D; and Schedule C describes the properties acquired in the name of the defendants, which the plaintiffs claim to have been out of tarwad funds.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1, 2 and 4 had filed a joint written statement in which they denied the validity of the Kudivaippu of the 2nd plaintiff as she was big with child at the time and had in her possession properties obtained in partition of her natural tarwad, the plaintiffs' right to enforce partition, and the plaint C schedule properties enuring to the tarwad. When plaint was amended, defendants 2 and 4 raised a further contention that the 1st defendant had, by his Will, Ext. D-40, dated 23 111959, disinherited the 1st plaintiff. The 7th defendant contended Ext. P-2 to be a deed of partition, not of maintenance arrangement.