AMBUJAM SHARMA, "ASHOKA" 200 SANKAR NAGAR, NEERMANKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. K.N. SUBRAMANIA IYER, S/O NEELAKANDA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the judgment and the decree passed in OS No.160/1996 on the file of the Sub Judge, Thodupuzha, by which the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff is the appellant. The parties are referred to as they appear in the plaint.

(2.) The suit was for partition. The plaint schedule properties belonged to one Neelakanta Iyer, who was governed by Mitakshara Law. Parvathy Ammal was his wife. He died intestate in 1945. The first defendant is their son. They had another son by name Kulathu Iyer, who died and whose wife and and children are defendants 4 to 8. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the two daughters of Neelakanta Iyer and Parvathy Ammal. They had another daughter by name, Rajammal, who died and whose husband and children are defendants 9 to 1 Neelakanta Iyer's wife, Parvathy Ammal, died intestate in 1977. In the plaint the plaintiff claimed that on the death of Neelakanta Iyer and his wife, Parvathy Ammal, the plaint schedule property belonging to Neelakanta Iyer devolved on their children equally. On the death of Kulathu Iyer, his % share devolved on defendants 4 to 8 and on the death of Rajammal, her % share devolved on defendants 9 to 1 The plaintiff prayed for partition of the properties and separation of her % share and realisation of her share in the income from the properties. In the written statement filed by the first defendant it is stated that on the death of Neelakanta Iyer his daughters did not get any right in his properties. Parvathy Ammal gave of her properties to the first and fourth defendants by a Will. The suit is liable to be dismissed. The trial court, after trial, found that the plaintiff nor the second defendant nor defendants 9 to 12 have any right in the plaint schedule properties, and accordingly, it dismissed the suit.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel for the first respondent.