KANJIRAMULLAKANDY SARADA AMMA Vs. SREEBIVASAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The supplementary defendants 22, 23 and 26 to 28 in a suit for partition are the appellants herein.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

(3.) Late Karunakaran Nair had properties apart from those included as item Nos.1 to 9 in the plaint. An extent of 96.5 cents comprised in re-survey No.21/4 along with item No.5 of the plaint schedule property is not included in the suit. The extent of property shown in item No.3 in the plaint, having an extent of 1.3 Acre is not correct. In fact, the correct extent is 2.6 1/2 Acres. Likewise, the description of item No.7 is also not correct; instead of 1.59 Acres, it is 2.10 Acres. Moreover, an extent of 1.52 Acres in Narakkod Amsom Desom is not seen included in the plaint property. The status of plaintiff and defendants 5 to 21 as the legal heirs of Karunakaran Nair was denied. It was also denied that Karunakaran Nair had three wives. In fact, according to the defendants, Karanakaran Nair had only one wife named Lakshmibai, who is the mother of defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff is not entitled to partition of the property into 22 equal shares. Karunakaran Nair had no relationship, whatsoever, with the 5th and 11th defendants and never solemnised any marriage with them. As far as item No.6 of the plaint schedule property is concerned, it was contended that late Karunakaran Nair executed a Will on 14/7/1985. Since defendant Nos.1 to 3 were residing at Bombay, the plaint schedule property as well as the properties not included therein were being managed by the plaintiff and other defendants. The averment that the 1st defendant had declined to sign the partition deed on 20/8/2004 was also denied.