CHOYICHI Vs. RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS in a suit for partition are the appellants. The suit was dismissed and the decision was confirmed in appeal.

(2.) PARTIES followed Hindu Mithakshara Law. The properties belonged to Kandappan on kanom. He died long ago. He had three song, Andi, nayadi and Karuthachi. First plaintiff is the widow and second plaintiff the daughter of Karuthachi who died before the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act and its extension to agricultural lands. There was no partition between the three brothers. Defendants 1 to 6 are the children of Andi. Defendants 7 to 9 are the children of Nayadi. They had another brother Sankaran and defendants 10 to 13 are bis widow and children.

(3.) APPELLATE court said that Karuthachi died leaving no sons and hence according to Hindu Mithakshara Law, his right will devolve by survivorship on Andi and Nayadi and bis widow and daughter are not entitled to succeed. This finding was based solely on what is stated at Page 87 of Hindu law by Mulla, 13th Edition that: "a Hindu who is possessed of separate property dies leaving two sons A & B. A then dies leaving a daughter C. According to the bengal School, A and B inherit as tenants-in-common, and therefore on A's death his share in the property goes to his heir C by succession. According to the mithakshara School. A and B inherit as joint owners who are living as members of a joint family. Therefore, if A dies without having partitioned the property, his undivided interest in the property will pass to bis brother B by survivorship to the exclusion of bis daughter C. But if the property was partitioned between A and B. the share which came to A on partition would go to bis heir C by succession".