KUNJUMOL THANKACHAN Vs. BINDU JAMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in a suit for partition are in appeal. Partition was sought in respect of three items of properties. The properties belonged to one Thankachan. The first plaintiff is the daughter of Thankachan and the second plaintiff is her husband. The first defendant is the wife of Thankachan and the second defendant is his son. Thankachan executed Ext.A2 settlement deed during the minority of the first plaintiff as also the second defendant in their favour in respect of the plaint A schedule property. It is recited in Ext.A2 settlement deed that the second defendant shall make arrangements for the marriage of the first plaintiff on her attaining majority, after paying her due share and giving the ornaments required for the marriage and that if the second defendant fails to discharge the said obligation, the first plaintiff will be entitled to one half share in the said property. The case of the first plaintiff is that the second defendant has not made arrangements for her marriage and that she has not been given her due share from the family. It is also her case that she married the second plaintiff on her own volition. According to the first plaintiff, she is therefore entitled to 1/2 share in the plaint A schedule property. As far as the plaint B and C schedule properties are concerned, the case set up by the first plaintiff is that on the death of Thankachan, one third share in the said properties devolved on her in accordance with the provisions contained in the Indian Succession Act. The first plaintiff, in the circumstances, claimed partition of her 1/2 share in the plaint A schedule property and 1/3 share in the plaint B and C schedule properties.

(2.) The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement. The fact that the second defendant has not made arrangements for the marriage of the first plaintiff is admitted by the defendants. But, it was contended by the defendants that after the marriage of the first plaintiff with the second plaintiff, the father of the first plaintiff gave a sum of Rs.15,00,000/ - to her towards her share in the family and that out of the said Rs.15,00,000/ -, Rs.10,00,000/ - was paid by the second defendant. As such, according to the defendants, the first plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the plaint A schedule property. As regards the right claimed by the first plaintiff over plaint B and C schedule properties, there was no serious dispute.

(3.) The trial court rejected the contentions of the defendants and decreed the suit, declaring the 1/2 share of the first plaintiff over the plaint A schedule property and the 1/3 share of the first plaintiff over the plaint B and C schedule properties. The defendants challenged the decision of the trial court in appeal. The appellate court, on a reappraisal of the evidence and materials on record, confirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence this second appeal.