PRABHAVINI DEVI Vs. SUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the plaintiffs in OS No. 148 of 1985 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi, and the appellants in AS No. 55 of 1995 on the files of the Sub Court, Tirur, which was filed challenging the judgment and decree, dismissing OS No. 148 of 1985.

(2.) The aforesaid Original Suit was one for partition. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint 'B' schedule property belonged to 'Menath Karunakaran Nair', the father of the 1st plaintiff and the defendants and husband of the 2nd plaintiff. The said 'Karunakaran Nair' died in the year 1974 and his legal heirs are the plaintiffs and the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, 'Karunakaran Nair' married 2nd plaintiff in accordance with the customs and law and the 1st plaintiff was born in the said wedlock. Thereafter, 'Karunakaran Nair' cohabited with 'Punathil Devi' and the defendants were born to them. The said 'Devi' was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased "Karunakaran Nair'. Thus, the 1st plaintiff and the defendants alone are the legal heirs of the deceased 'Karunakaran Nair'. Hence, the property has to be divided into five shares and each of them are entitled to get one share each. The plaintiffs and the defendants are in joint possession of the property. When the plaintiffs demanded partition of the said property, the defendants refused the same. Hence, the suit was filed claiming 1/5 share in the plaint 'B' schedule property.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendants contended that 'Karunakaran Nair' was neither the father of the 1st plaintiff nor the husband of the 2nd plaintiff. The said 'Karunakaran Nair' did not marry the 2nd plaintiff and the 1st plaintiff is not the daughter of the deceased 'Karunakaran Nair'. 'Karunakaran Nair' died on 16/04/1972 and not in the year 1974, as averred in the plaint. Thus, the legal heirs of the deceased 'Karunakaran Nair' are the defendants and their mother only and the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of 'Karunakaran Nair'. So, they are not entitled to get any share in the plaint 'B' schedule property. According to the defendants, plaint 'B' schedule property is in the exclusive possession of the defendants alone for the last 12 years. Since the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any share, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.