VILASINI AND ORS. Vs. THANKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the appellants.

(2.) The properties sought to be partitioned belonged to the predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiffs, namely, Krishnan Nair and his mother Kunjukutty Amma. The properties owned the by Krishnan Nair and Kunjukutty Amma were partitioned between them as per Ext. A1 partition deed in the year 1952. The properties included in the C -schedule to Ext. A1 partition deed were allotted to Kunjukutty Amma, her daughter Kalyani Amma and her daughter, the defendant. Krishnan Nair died thereafter. Kunjukutty Amma also died later. According to the plaintiffs, Kunjukutty Amma died on 25.12.1957, after the introduction of the Hindu Succession Act and as such, on her death, her one half share over the properties included in the C schedule to Ext. A1 partition deed devolved on them as the legal representatives of her pre -deceased son Krishnan Nair and the suit is for partition of the said one half share over the said properties. The defendant resisted the suit, contending, among others, that Kunjukutty Amma died prior to the introduction of the Hindu Succession Act, in the year 1955 itself and that therefore, the plaintiffs have not acquired any right in the suit properties on her death. The trial court non -suited the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs have not established their case that Kunjukutty Amma died after introduction of the Hindu Succession Act as claimed by them. Though the matter was taken up in appeal, the appellate court, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, confirmed the decision of the trial court. The plaintiffs, who are aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against them have thus come up in this second appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondent.