ARARAMMAL PARKUM AB AMMALOO Vs. PANAGADAN VACHALI SUBHADRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Blood is thicker than water is a proverb first recorded about 1412, indicating stronger bonds within the family. Water is thinner and leaves no mark on evaporation; blood on the contrary is thicker and always leaves a stain. There is no difficulty in effecting partition of family property when the stain is fresh. But thinner the stain owing to passage of time, more difficult and complicated is the process of partition since the relationship among the members is distanced, if not strained. This is the crux of the problem in these cases, perhaps the oldest before this court. During the beginning of the 20th century one Karathotti and Matha did not deem it serious to partition their family property. They had six children namely (1) Kunhikannan, (2) Chathan, (3) Manikkam, (4) Paru, (5) Karinji and (6) Mathu. It is not in dispute that Kunhikannan had released his rights in the properties in favour of others. So the dispute is only with regard to the descendants of the rest five children. That lead to the filing of O.S.No.102/1980 on the file of the Sub Court, Badagara. The plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 are the legal representatives of Govindan, the only son of Paru. Defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Karinji. During the pendency of the legal proceedings, the legal representatives of the parties had to be impleaded and hence the voluminous cause title.

(2.) A preliminary decree in O.S. No. 102/1980 of Sub Court Vadakara was passed allotting shares to Plaintiffs and defendants 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 (Who are respondents Nos. 1 to 19, 23 to 29 and 31 to 40 in AS. No. 250 of 1987) to the following effect:

(3.) The said decree excludes the branches of Manickam fully and Chathan partially. Manickam's branch include deceased D8 and D23 to D25 (Respondents 24 to 26), grand children born to Kumaran, the only son of Manickam. Chathan's branch include Defendant No. 2, and Defendants 6,7, 9 to 16 grand children (now by surviving Respondents 14, 17, 27 to 29, 38 to 42 and 51 to 55). In view of the exclusion, three appeals have been filed.