RAMAN Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are defendants 1 and 2. First appellant died and additional appellants 3 to 10 were impleaded, Plaintiff filed the suit for partition and a preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court and it C has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) Plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. Third defendant is the son of the first defendant. Plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Cheeru and Ittianandan. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaint schedule property was obtained by Cheeru as per Ext. A6 assignment dated 21/10/1096 M. E. from her husband Ittianandan, that Cheeru executed Ext A2 settlement deed on 01/05/1951 in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 reserving life interest to her, that Cheeru died on 13/04/1977 and that plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to the D property. Plaintiff claims 1/3rd share. Out of 37 cents of property, an area having 8. 50 cents was acquired by the State. Item 1 in the plaint schedule is 28.50 cents of property whereas Item 2 is the land acquisition amount awarded. Second defendant has supported the case of the plaintiff and he also claimed partition. Defendants 1 and 3 filed joint written statement contending that the property belonged to Achuthan, brother of Ittianandan, that when Achuthan died property devolved on his son Ayyappan and that the third defendant got assignment of Ayyappan's right in the property as per Ext. B1 dated 23/10/1980. Defendant 1 and 3 contended that Cheeru had no title or possession and that Ext. A6 is bad and consequently plaintiff cannot claim any right under Ext. A2. It is their contention that the parties are governed by Makkathayam law of inheritance and so Ittianandan will not get any right in the property which belonged to Achuthan.

(3.) It is common case that the property belonged to Achuthan as per Exts. A7 and A8. In view of the controversy between the parties with regard to the law of inheritance, point for consideration is whether Marumakkathayam law is applicable or Makkathayam law. If the Marumakkathayam law is applicable, the claim of the plaintiff has to be upheld. On the contrary if it is found that the applicability is Makkathayam law, the plaintiff has to be non suited.