VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRIPAD Vs. RAVI NAMBOODIRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. 22 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottappalam, the short question for consideration is whether Ext. B-11, dated 10th November 1962 is actually a partition or only an arrangement for maintenance. Both sides agreed that if it is treated as an outright partition, the appellants are out of court; otherwise the suit for partition will have to be allowed.

(2.) Admittedly such of the plaintiffs and defendants who were in existence on the date of Ext. B-11 were members of an undivided Namboodiri Illom. The properties sought to be partitioned are B, B-1 and C schedule items in the plaint. Plaint A schedule is the genealogy table. D schedule items are debts to be discharged by the Illom. B schedule items are properties in the direct possession of the Illom and B-1 schedule items are outstanding with tenants. G schedule items are movables.

(3.) On 10th November 1962 the then existing members of the Illom entered into Ext. B-11, naming it an agreement for partition. Plaintiffs say that this document was intended only as a temporary arrangement for maintenance, since the members felt that execution of an outright partition in order to divide the properties by metes and bounds may take some time. According to them an outright partition, if necessary, disturbing the arrangement under Ext. B-11 was in contemplation and Ext. B-11 was intended only as a temporary arrangement till such a partition deed is executed and hence even after execution of Ext. B-11 the Illom remained undivided. But the defence version is that Ext. B-11 evidences an outright partition and hence the suit for partition is not at all maintainable, since there is no undivided family after the date of Ext. B-11.