LEKSHMI AMMA Vs. KRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I think the decision of the District Judge reversing the decision of the Munsiff holding that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhavani Pillai v. Ammukutty Pillai ( 1958 KLT 869 ) applied to the case is correct.

(2.) There were three sisters belonging to the Kurukkal community to whom the marumakkathayam law applied: to be more precise, the Nair Act, did not apply to them. One of the sisters was the first plaintiff, another a Sathyabhama, the mother of a Sarasamma, and the third a Rugmini, under whom the first defendant respondent claims. Sathyabhama died; and a partition of the properties belonging to the three sisters was effected by the first plaintiff and Rugmini, whereby Sarasamma, who was then a minor, was given a third share. Sarasamma also died childless subsequently; and the dispute in the second appeal relates to the properties left by her. The respondent, as already stated, represents Rugmini; and the plaintiff - appellants represent the first plaintiff. The appellants' claim was that they were entitled to nine shares out of ten while the respondent was entitled only to one share. In other words, their claim was that on the death of Sarasamma the properties left by her devolved on her grandmother's tavazhi as her mother was not alive; and that the said thavazhi consisted often members, nine of whom belonged to the first plaintiff's branch and one alone belonged to Rugmini's branch. Putting it differently again, the claim was that the properties should be divided per capita among the members of the grandmother's tavazhi and nine such shares should be allotted to the first plaintiff's branch and only one share to the respondent's branch.

(3.) The Trial Court agreed with this contention; but the lower appellate court held that since the partition was among the three sisters branch wise, on the extinction of one branch the properties left by that branch should devolve on the other two branches branch wise and not on the basis of per capita or on the basis that the grandmother's tavazhi was still in existence. In other words, the lower appellate court held that since the grandmother's tavazhi was no more in existence after the partition, the properties left by Sarasamma could devolve only on the other two branches branch wise and not on the basis that the two branches originally constituted one tavazhi. In support of this conclusion the lower appellate court relied on the Division Bench ruling already referred to.