NAGATHINGAL INDIRA AMMA Vs. NAGATHINGAL KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant in this second appeal. The parties are Marumakkathayees and a small geneology is required for a proper understanding of the case.

(2.) The common ancestress was one Paru Amma. She had five children of whom mention may be made only of the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant, 3rd defendant and Kuttimalu Amma. The plaintiff and defendants 4 to 11 are the children of the third defendant, Lakshmi Amma. Defendants 12 to 15 are the children of Kuttimalu Amma and defendant No. 16 is her grand-daughter through her deceased daughter, Janaki Amma. The 17th defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant.

(3.) In 1962, to be exact, on 28-8-1962, as per Ext. Al, a partition karar was entered into between the members of the thavazhy of Paru Amma, who were 14 in number then, partitioning the only property in the direct possession of the thavazhy, having an extent of 1 acre 331/4 cents and also others properties in the possession of tenants, which have practically no value, the tenants being entitled to fixity of tenure under the various tenancy and Land Reforms legislations. The 3rd defendant and her children then existing, the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7, entitled to five out of 14 shares ware allotted only 7 cents, while the first defendant, entitled only to one share out of 14 was given 17 cents, the 2nd defendant, also entitled to one share, was allotted 371/2 cents and Paru Amma and others entitled to 7/14 shares were allotted 721/2 cents. Soon thereafter the first defendant has assigned his properties to the 2nd defendant and on 28-7-1971, the 3rd defendant (mother) for herself and acting as the guardian of her minor children and along with her son, the 4th defendant, who had just attained majority, assigned their rights in the 7 cents to the wife of the 2nd defendant, the 17th defendant. The plaintiff on attaining majority, realises she has been very badly treated during her minority and that she has been deprived of all her thavazhy assets and that even her share in the 7 cents allotted to her thavazhy has been illegally transferred. She, therefore, filed the suit for partition on 18-12-1976 ignoring or setting aside the partition of 1962 and the alienation effected in 1971.