YESODA Vs. NEELAMMA LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 in O.S.No.38 of 1972 on the file of the Sub Court,Quilon,are the appellants.The suit,from which the second appeal arises,was one for partition.I shall refer in brief to the facts of the case.One Raman Gangadharan died in Singapore on 19th January 1971.The plaintiff is his mother,the first defendant his wife and the second defendant,his daughter.Plaint A -B and C schedule properties belonged to him.According to the plaintiff,herself and defendants 1 and 2 are each entitled to 1/3 share.Since the defendants were not amenable to partition of the properties out of court,the suit had to be filed.Defendants 3 and 4 have been impleaded as members of the Gangadharan's tarwad.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit,since she is not entitled to any share in the estate of deceased Gangadharan.According to them,Gangadharan,at the time of his death was not an Indian citizen but had acquired British citizenship on and from 31st January 1969.A -schedule properties are the movable properties other than money which belonged to deceased Gangadharan.B -schedule properties are immovable properties and C -schedule properties,the money in Bank deposit.

(3.) THE only question that falls for consideration in this second appeal is as to what is the law of succession applicable to Gangadharan.I am not interested in this second appeal with the A and B -schedule properties in the plaint.It is conceded,and rightly,by the learned counsel for the appellants,that the law applicable to A and B schedule properties is the lex situs,i.e .,the law of the land where the properties are situated.The Plaintiff is therefore entitled to a share in these properties.