RAMAN PADMANABHAN Vs. DEVAKI THULASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant.The suit property having an extent of 75 cents is a portion of 1 acre and 21 cents,which belonged to deceased Kutti Kesavan in kanapattom right,and he assigned his entire right to Kochuvava,in the year 1100.Parties are Ezhavas.Kochuvava had two children,a son and a daughter.The defendant is the son and Kochuvava Devaki(now deceased ),the mother of plaintiffs I to 3,was the daughter.Kochuvava died in 1119 and her right over the entire 1 acre 21 cents devolved on the sub tarward consisting of the plaintiffs and the defendant.The defendant and Kochuvava Devaki surrendered the kanapattom right over 46 cents to the jenmi and executed Ext.A1 kanapattom deed on 6th Dhanu 1121 in respect of the suit property for and on behalf of the sub tarwad.Kochuvava Devaki died in the year 1125 and the plaintiffs who are her children are entitled to 7/8 share in the suit property.This,in short,is the case of the plaintiffs.

(2.) RAISING mainly the following contentions,the defendant contested the suit.The kanapattom right in the entire property belonged exclusively to deceased Kochuvava and on her death the defendant and Kochuvava Devaki alone inherited the property in equal shares.Thereafter the defendant and Kochuvava Devaki took kanapattom right in respect of 75 cents under Ext.A1 from the jenmi and after the death of Kochuvava Devaki,her right devolved on the defendant.He has effected improvements in the property and the right of the plaintiffs,if any,is lost by adverse possession and limitation.

(3.) THE plaintiffs took up the matter in appeal and the lower appellate court while upholding the finding of the Trial Court that on the death of Kochuvava,her rights devolved on the defendant,plaintiffs 1 and 2 and their mother Kochuvava Devaki as tenants in common,held that Ext.A1 cannot be taken as an independent transaction on the basis of which Kochuvava Devaki and the defendant alone were entitled to the property and that even if there was any fresh right on the basis of Ext.A1 it must be deemed to have been acquired for and on behalf of the other coowners also under the provisions of S.90 of the Trusts Act.It was therefore held that the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/4 share and the defendant 1/4 share in the suit property.The claim of the defendant for value of improvements was disavowed.The appeal was thus partly allowed modifying the decree and judgment of the Trial Court in the manner stated above.