RUGMINI AMMAL Vs. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Second Appeal and the cross objections thereon arise out of a suit for partition.The plaintiff is the appellant.The cross objectors are defendants 1 and 2.2.One Muthayyan Pillai executed a Will marked as Ext.B -2 in the case on 21st October 1913.He was governed by the Hindu Mithakshara Law.He died on 13th December 1913.He had two sons:( 1)Appukutty alias Suppu Pillai and(2)Narayanankutty Pillai.As per the Will some of the self acquired properties of Muthayyan Pillai was given to the eldest son Suppu Pillai and his "santhanangal " ;.Some others were given to Narayanankutty Pillai and his "Santhanangal " ;.There were bequests in the Will to his daughters.If the daughters 'lines(that is the daughters and their children)were to be extinct,the properties were to go to the sons.The reason for executing the Will was stated in these terms: (...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...) ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(2.) ITEMS 1 to 4 of the plaint properties were operties obtained by deceased Narayanankutty Pillai as per the Will.Plaint items 5 and 6 are his subsequent self acquisitions.B schedule is alleged to be movables which belonged to Narayanankutty Pillai.He died in the year 1964,intestate.The suit has been brought forward by a daughter of deceased Narayanankutty Pillai,his legal heirs being his wife - 8th defendant,and his children,defendants 1 to 7,besides the plaintiff.The first defendant is the eldest son who is said to be in possession of the properties.Plaintiff claimed 1/9 share of the properties with future mesne profits.The daughters,3rd and 4th defendants,in their written statements,admitted the plaint claim and they claimed their separate shares in the properties.

(3.) THE Trial Court found that the bequest was to the joint family of Narayanankutty Pillai and as such the plaintiff can get only a share in the interest of her father had in the properties.A preliminary decree for partition of A and B schedule properties was passed directing division into 2 equal parts and allotment of one share each to plaintiff and defendants 3 to 8.The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal to the District Court,where,the main contention was regarding the nature and interest taken by Narayanankutty Pillai under the Will Ext.B -2.The appellant contended that the bequest tendered solely to the benefit of Narayanankutty Pillai and not to his joint family.In the cross objections,respondents 1 and 2 contended that the custom prevailing in their community disentitle the married daughter from claiming a share in the estate of their father even after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act.It was also urged in the cross objections that the direction to divide the B schedule movables on the assumption that they are joint family properties was erroneous.However,the lower appellate court,dismissed the appeal and the cross objections and confirmed the Trial Court's judgment and decree.The plaintiff has come up in appeal to this court.Respondents 1 and 2 have filed cross objections in this court also.