VAYYERINTEKATH AVIRAMMENTEVIDE MAMMEN Vs. PANIKKAREKATH MARIYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have come up in appeal here. The suit was one for arrears of maintenance from 1141 to 1144. The short facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) The first plaintiff married the second plaintiff on 29th March 1948, At that time, one Ponmankai Ahammad, husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 9 and the then Karnavan of the second plaintiff's tavazhi tarwad had agreed to pay 400 seers of paddy per year by way of maintenance to the plaintiffs. Though it was so declared by the said Ahammad at the time of the marriage and the same was recorded in the registers maintained by the mosque, as per this promise maintenance was being paid up to 1134 only and thereafter there was default of payment. Therefore the plaintiffs filed O. S.556 of 1965 for realisation of the arrears of maintenance from 1135 to 1140 against Ahammad, The suit was decreed. Though Ahammad went in appeal, the appeal was dismissed. Pending the appeal Ahammad died and his legal representatives, defendants I to 9 were impleaded in that appeal But as pointed out earlier the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. That amount has not yet been realised and the subsequent arrears of maintenance from 1141 onwards were again defaulted. This led to the present suit. The plaint proceeds on the basis that Ahammad is personally liable for the amount of maintenance but as he is dead his assets are sought to be made liable for the said amount. Defendants I to 9 would be liable to the extent that they are in possession and enjoyment of the assets of Ahammad. Defendants 10 and 11 are the present Karnavans in the tarwad and tavazhi and they are sought to be made personally liable for the arrears accrued due after the death of Ahammad.

(3.) In the suit the present Karnavans of the tarwad and tavazhi remained ex parte. Defendants 1 and 7 and 2 to 6 filed separate written statements whereby they contended that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief. They denied even the allegation regarding the agreement to pay the maintenance to the plaintiffs stated in the plaint. In any view, according to them, the assets of deceased Ahammad would not be liable for the maintenance and defendants 10 and 11 who are the present Karnavans of the tarwad and tavazhi alone would be liable for the maintenance due to the plaintiffs. It had been alleged in the written statement that Ahammad was not taking the income from the tavazhi properties during the period for which this suit was filed, It was also contended that a portion of the plaint claim was barred by limitation, The plaintiffs would be entitled to get only the arrears that have accrued due for the past three years immediately preceding the date of suit.