KUNNUMAL MADHAVI Vs. KARTHIYAYINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TODAY, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is present and argued the appeal, which was posted under the caption 'dismissal'.

(2.) THIS appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 36 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Mahe.

(3.) THE averments in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows: The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Koodathil Kalliadan Lakshmi Amma as per the document No. 118/1954 of Sub Registrar Office, Mahe. Thereafter the plaint schedule property was gifted to her son, Koodathil Kalliadan Damodharan as per the document No. 172/1969 of Sub Registrar Office, Mahe. Subsequently, the plaint schedule property was assigned to Melathoor Nanu, the father-in-law of the plaintiff, husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 5 as per the document No. 25/1971 of Sub Registrar Office, Mahe. In the life time of the said Nanu, he acquired some other properties also. He married one Janu as per the customary rites prevailed their community. The husband of the plaintiff was born in that wedlock. After the death of Janu, he married the first defendant and the defendants 2 to 5 born in that wedlock. After the death of the said Nanu, a partition took place among legal heirs of him under the document No. 108/1983 of Sub Registrar Office, Mahe. As per the said partition, the plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of the defendants and husband of the plaintiff with their separate possession and enjoyment. The said Padmanabhan married the plaintiff on 13. 9. 1992 as per the customary rites prevailed in their community from the house of the plaintiff. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife. There is no issues in the said wedlock. The said Padmanabhan died on 5. 11. 1996. After the death of the said Padmanabhan, the plaintiff and defendants are jointly enjoying and possessing the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property contains a house and well. The plaintiff is not willing to enjoy and possess the plaint schedule property jointly with the defendants. As the plaintiff wanted to divide the property and to keep separate possession, a notice was issued to the first defendant and others on 4. 3. 1997 demanding partition. On receipt of the said notice, the first defendant sent a reply dated 17. 3. 1997. In the said reply notice, she admitted the right of the plaintiff, but denies the extent of the share of the plaintiff. Hence the suit for partition of plaintiff's 1/6th share in the plaint schedule property.