SMITHA Vs. THANKAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thrissur are the appellants. For the purpose of convenience the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.

(2.) The plaintiff Thankamani filed the about Suit for partition. Defendants 1 to 3 are her children and defendants 4 and 5 are the wife and minor son of her pre-deceased son Rajan. In the suit there are three items of properties, namely, plaint 'A', 'B' and 'C schedules. As per the plaint, plaint 'A' schedule item Nos.1 to 4 were purchased by the plaintiff's husband Ramakrishnan as per various documents and item Nos.5 and 6 were obtained by him as per partition deed No.1396/1977. Plaint 'B' schedule was obtained by late Rajan, as per partition deed No.1396/1977. Plaint 'C' schedule property was purchased by deceased Rajan along with the 2nd defendant Renjan. Ramakrishnan died intestate on 19/11/1986 and Rajan died intestate on 1/11/2007. According to the plaintiff, on the death of Ramakrishnan plaint 'A' schedule property devolved upon the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 and Rajan. Further according to the plaintiff, on the death of Rajan plaint 'B' schedule property and his share in plaint 'A' and 'C' schedules devolved upon the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5. It was in the above context that she preferred the Suit for partition.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement admitting the plaint claim. Defendants 4 and 5 filed written statement admitting that plaint 'A' schedule property is liable to be partitioned. However, according to them, plaint 'B' schedule is not partible, as the said property originally belonged to Rajan, the husband of the 4th defendant and son of the 5th defendant. Further according to them, plaint 'C' schedule items 3, 4 and 5 were purchased by Rajan using the amount received from the 4th defendant. Therefore, it is contended that plaint 'C' schedule items 3, 4 and 5 are also not partible.