KADUNGOTH PURAKKAL AMMALU Vs. KADUNGOTH PURAKKAL MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are two out of three daughters of a deceased Thiyya. They instituted the suit against the 3rd daughter, the defendant, for partition of the property they inherited from their father. It was alleged in the plaint that a partition deed was executed about 9th January 1909, that this document was in the possession of the defendant, who undertook to present it for registration, that defendant, subsequently, substituted a forged deed for that document and succeeded in getting the forged instrument registered. The plaintiffs say that they are, therefore, entitled to a decree for partition and a declaration that the instrument of partition registered on the 9th January 1909 was a forgery and not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit has been dismissed on two grounds. The first ground is that the plaintiff s proper remedy was to seek for recovery of possession of the properties which, according to their case, were allotted to them under the terms of the genuine partition deed put forward by them. The second ground is that the daughters of a Hindu are not entitled to absolute partition, but only to partition of their rights to enjoy the properties during their life-time.

(2.) With regard to the latter ground, I may at once state that there is nothing in the plaint to show that the plaintiffs seek a partition which would affect the rights of the reversioner or their mutual rights of survivorship on the death of any one of them. It is settled law now that the daughters of a Hindu are entitled to partition of their life-interests and there is no reason why the plaintiffs should not have a decree for partition which would make them and the defendant divided with respect to their life-interests.

(3.) With respect to the other ground of decision, the instrument of partition put forward by the plaintiffs proved ineffective as the defendant kept it away and it was never registered. The document was undoubtedly compulsorily registrable. See Lakshmamma v. Kameswara 13 M. 281.