RANJINI KAKKADATH Vs. KAKKADATH RAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, which to us, appears to be a rather ambitious in its reach, the appellant contends against the most fundamental notions in law relating to partition. He seeks partition of unestimated and concededly unavailable sums of money, which he claims has been earned by the defendants from the properties held in common by them. However, he vociferously denies that these amounts represent profits from the jointly owned estate and predicates that they are in the nature of an entrustment of money on her behalf, at the hands of the defendants, qualifying it to be in the nature of a trust property, thus making it eligible for partition. Incredulous as it may seem, we, nevertheless, have no other way than to assess these submissions in law, since the hypostatis of this appeal rests on this sole assertion.

(2.) This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff who filed a suit for partition of certain properties scheduled to the plaint, claimed to be that belonging to her deceased father. The plaintiff Smt. Ranjini Kakkadath is the daughter of Sri. Kakkadath Ramachandran who died on 06/04/2005. As per the plaint averments three schedules of properties were owned by Sri. Kakkadath Ramachandran and on his death they devolved upon the plaintiff, her mother and her brother who are arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit.

(3.) The said suit, namely O.S. No. 91 of 2014, was laid by the appellant herein as the plaintiff on the files of the Sub Court, Kozhikode and the Court below after trial decreed it holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 share in plaint A and B schedule properties and as also to future share of profits from the 2nd defendant, the quantum of which was left to be decided in the final decree proceedings. The appellant has filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree of the Court below asserting that it has erred in not ordering partition of the Plaint C schedule property and also for the reason that she has not been given mean profits or share of profits from the estate for the period prior to the filing of the suit. She alleges that the Court below has only granted a future share of profits to her from the 2nd defendant while denying her right to receive share of past profit from the estate in terms of law.