CHERIKKAL KUNHAMINA Vs. KAKKAM VEETTIL MARIYUMMA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant. The plaintiff claimed that she is the wife of one Assukutty and the property scheduled in the plaint belonged to Assukutty's mother Kayyumma and his sister Kunahmina. Kunhamina is the second defendant. Assukutty died. The plaintiff is the legal heir of Assukutty. The defendants resisted the suit. They contended that the plaintiff is not the wife of Assukutty. Further, they contended that Assukutty died as an unmarried person. The defendants also contended that even if the plaintiff had any right in the property she had lost that right on account of adverse possession and limitation.

(2.) The trial Court after considering the evidence found that there was no sufficient material and evidence to establish the fact that the plaintiff is the wife of Assukutty. The trial Court also found that assuming that the plaintiff is the wife of Assukutty. The trial Court also found that assuming that the plaintiff is the wife of Assukutty she cannot claim partition since whatever rights she had, she lost it by adverse possession. The suit was dismissed.

(3.) The plaintiff filed an appeal. The appellate Court did not agree with the trial on both the points. The appellate Court found that there are good evidence to establish the fact that the plaintiff is the wife of late Assukutty. The appellate Court also found that the defendants have not discharged their onerous burden of establishing a case of ouster ; but the appellate Court did not decree the suit in toto. It found that excluding an extent of 18 cents from the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for 6/72 shares in the suit property. Now, the second defendant appeals.