RAGHAVAN PILLAI Vs. KUNJURAMAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts necessary to resolve the dispute in this case lie within a narrow compass and are not in dispute. The property sought to be partitioned in the suit instituted by the appellant plaintiff originally belonged to one Kutty Amma Lekshmi Amma, who died leaving as heirs only two sons, namely, Narayana Pillai, the father of the plaintiff, and Pachu Pillai, the predecessor in interest of the defendants. The short case put forward by the plaintiff was that as heir to, the estate of Narayana Pillai he is entitled to a one half share in the suit property. Though the Trial Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff the lower appellate court dismissed the suit on the ground that Narayana Pillai did not leave a heritable estate in the suit property.

(2.) Both sides agreed before me that both Lekshmi Amma, the original owner of the property, and her son Narayana Pillai died between 1088 and 1100 M.E the two years in which statutes were enacted regulating the succession to properties owned by marumakkathayees. It is also not disputed before me that the right of succession to the property of Lekshmi Amma is to be adjudged on the basis of the Travancore Nair Regulation, 1088. It is again common case that the suit property was the separate property of Lekshmi Amma. S.15 of the Nair Regulation of 1088 is in the following terms: