DEVI AMMA Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 18 to 22 and 24 in a suit for partition are the appellants in the Second Appeal.

(2.) The property sought to be partitioned in the suit is an item originally held by one Kelu Kurup. Kelu Kurup gifted the property to his nieces namely Mathu, Parvathi, Lekshmi and Madhavi. Exhibit A1 is the Gift Deed executed by Kelu Kurup in this connection. The plaintiffs are persons claiming under Madhavi. The case set out by the plaintiffs in the plaint is that Ext. AI is a gift in favour of the travesties of the four persons mentioned in the document and all the members of the four travesties are, therefore, entitled to a share in the property. A decree for partition was sought, in the circumstances, on that basis.

(3.) Among the donees in Exhibit A1, Parvathi was succeeded by her son Sankara Kurup. Sankara Kurup had married thrice. Defendant No. 11 is the son of Sankara Kurup in his first wife. Defendant No. 17 is the second wife and defendant No. 19 is the third wife of Sankara Kurup. Defendant No. 18 is the daughter born to Sankara Kurup in defendant No. 17 and defendant Nos. 20 to 24 are the children born to Sankara Kurup in defendant No. 19. In the suit, among others, defendant No. 11 contended that he is the sole successor of Sankara Kurup. According to him, the marriages of Sankara Kurup with defendants 17 and 19 took place prior to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act), at a point of time when the Madras Marumakkathayam Act 1932, was in force and the said marriages are void in terms of the provisions of the Act. It was his contention that since the said marriages are void, the children born to Sankara Kurup in the said marriages are not entitled to a share in the property of Sankara Kurup. Defendant No. 23 refuted the said stand of defendant No. 11. According to him, in the light of Section 16 of the Act, defendants 18 and 20 to 24 are also entitled to a share in the property inherited by Sankara Kurup, along with defendant No. 11.