KALANDIYIL SOMANATHAN, AZHIYOOR AMSOM, CHOMBAL DESOM BADAGARA TALUK AND OTHERS Vs. PONNAMBATH KALANDY LAKSHMANAN CHEVAYOOR AMSOM, DESOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary decree for partition is under challenge in these appeals. A.F.A No.35 of 1995 is at the instance of the second defendant, and A.F.A No.34 of 1995 is at the instance of defendants 5 and 6.

(2.) The first defendant is the wife of one Kanaran. The first plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are their children. The plaint schedule property belonged to the family of Kanaran, of which he was the Karanavar. The said Kanaran along with his mother Manikyam and his brothers, Kunkar and Kunhiraman, executed Ext A1 Kanam deed in favour of first defendant (wife of Kanaran) and one Edakkattu Lekshmi who is the wife of Kunkar, the brother of Kanaran. The rights of Edakkattu Lekshmi was conveyed by her in favour of the second plaintiff as per Exts A2 and A3 assignment deeds. The rights of the first defendant was gifted by her to the second defendant as per Ext B9. Pending the suit, 2nd defendant assigned half out of his rights over the property to defendants 5 and 6 as per Ext B11. The claim for partition is made contending that, the acquisition under Ext A1 in the name of the first defendant, was by her husband, which enures to her thavazhi. Defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 challenge the claim for partition contending that, it is the self acquisition of first defendant and Edakkattu Lekshmi, whereas defendants 3 and 4 support the plaintiffs case.

(3.) The trial court held the acquisition under Ext A1 to be self acquisition and that it does not enure to the benefit of the thavazhy. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Single Judge reversed the finding and held that the acquisition enures to the benefit of the thavazhy.