GOPAKUMAR Vs. KAMALAKSHY PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first and second defendants came up with this appeal challenging the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 121/2001 of Sub Court, Alappuzha and in A.S. No. 21/2005 of District Court, Alappuzha. A cross objection was also filed by defendant Nos. 3 to 5.

(2.) The suit is one for a declaration of status of plaintiffs, being the legally wedded wife and children of deceased Purushothaman and for a declaration of title over the immovable property scheduled in the plaint, left out by him and for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court declaring the status of plaintiffs - the legally wedded wife and children of deceased Purushothaman and their title over the plaint schedule property being the legal heirs. In appeal, the decree of the Trial Court was modified, declaring the status of plaintiffs as the legally wedded wife and children of deceased Purushothaman along with first defendant who is found to be an illegitimate son of deceased Purushothaman and granted a preliminary decree of partition of the property scheduled in the plaint.

(3.) The claim of plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of deceased Purushothaman and that their marriage was solemnized on 22/3/1964. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children born in the wedlock with the above said Purushothaman. After getting employment in KSRTC, he began to live with one Syambavi and there is a male issue in that relationship, the first defendant. While he was living with Syambavi, he met with an accident and died due to electrocution on 03/03/1993. Thereon, Syambavi, the mother of 1st defendant executed Ext. A6 settlement deed in favour of first defendant on 05/03/1996 and settled her fractional interest over the property left out by deceased Purushothaman. Subsequently, the first defendant along with her mother Syambavi on 02/4/1998 conveyed 47.888 cents of property out of the large extent of 1 acre 7 cents left out by Purushothaman, in favour of defendants 3 to 5 for valid consideration. Syambavi died on 15/9/1999 and after her death, her son, the 1st defendant had given another portion of property, 25 cents, to the 2nd defendant under Ext. A8 document dated 4/2/2000. Thereby, a total extent of 72.888 cents of property was alienated out of 1 acre 7 cents.