PATHUMMA Vs. VEERASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff it the appellant. She filed the suit, for partition claiming 7/80 shares in the suit properties. The Sub Judge, Manjeri granted a preliminary decree for partition as prayed for by the plaintiff. Defendants filed A. S.25 of 1980 before the District Court, Manjeri. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and non suited the plaintiff.

(2.) Plaintiff is the sister of defendants 1 to 4. 5th defendant is her sister and 6th defendant is her mother. The properties belonged to deceased Muhammed, father of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of her father the properties devolved on her and other legal heirs and that they continued to be in joint possession of the properties. As against the plaintiff's claim for partition defendants contended that plaintiff's cannot claim any right to the properties as she had already assigned her rights in the properties to the second defendant on 2-10-1964 for valuable consideration. Defendants contended that the properties were later partitioned by them aa per a registered partition deed dated 13-11-1978 and that they are in separate possession of the same.

(3.) Defendants very much relied en Ext. B-1 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant. Execution of Ext. B-1 is flatly denied by the plaintiff. Learned Sub Judge accepted the case of the plaintiff and held that she had not executed Ext. B-1 document and accordingly decreed the suit. On the other hand learned District Judge held that Ext. B-1 was really executed by the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant and as she had assigned her undivided rights in the properties to the second defendant she cannot claim any right what-so-ever in the properties.