S NARAYAN Vs. MEENKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions of law involved in this Second Appeal are the following:

(2.) The property sought to be partitioned is having only an extent of three cents and it is a kudikidappu. It was owned by Ramayi who died on 12.9.1976. Ramayi left behind her four daughters including the plaintiff and a son, the defendant After the death of Ramayi, plaintiff Obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal in her name, but on behalf of the other co-owners as well. The three sisters of the plaintiff released their fractional rights in the property to the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff claimed 4/5 shares and contended that the defendant has only 1/5 share.

(3.) The defendant contended that Ramayi was not the kudikidappukari, but her husband was the kudikidappukaran and that the plaintiff and her sisters were married away before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act and, therefore, they are not entitled to any share in the property. The defendant contended that the building was constructed by him.