IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SA.No. 538 of 2002()
1. RAHELAMMA CHACKO,
... Petitioner
2. T.C.AMMINIKUTTY,
3. T.C.MARIAMMA,
Vs
1. GEEVARGHESE ANNAMMA,
... Respondent
2. GEEVARGHESE,
3. SUSAMMA,
4. BABY VARGHESE,
5. ANNAMMA GEORGE,
6. T.THANKACHAN,
7. T.C.VARGHESE,
8. T.C.MATHEW,
9. T.C.SABU, THADATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :22/09/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
----------------------------------------
S.A.No.538 of 2002
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The second appeal is preferred against
the concurrent decision rendered in
O.S.No.444/90 on the file of the Munsiff’s
Court, Adoor, by the two courts below granting
a preliminary decree in favour of the
plaintiff/1st respondent in the appeal.
2. Suit was one for partition and
admittedly, the plaint property belonged to one
Chacko Varghese. Plaintiff is one among the
daughters of the above Chacko Varghese. Her
claim for partition was resisted by the
contesting defendants contending that the
daughters who have been given away in marriage
with ‘Sthreedhana’ are not entitled to claim
any share in the property of their father.
S.A.No.538 of 2002
2
Provisions of the Travancore Christian
Succession Act, which spelt out the rule of
succession disinheriting the daughters given
away in marriage on payment of ‘Sthreedhana’
from claiming shares in the family property was
pressed into service to decline the suit claim
of the plaintiff for separate allotment of
share over the property of the father, who died
intestate. Both the courts below, taking note
that the Travancore Christian Succession Act,
stood repealed with the coming into force of the
Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, and the
succession of the parties who are Christians is
governed by the provisions of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 repelled the contention
raised by the defendants resisting the suit
claim for partition. In that view of the matter,
a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the
plaintiff/1st respondent. Challenge in this
S.A.No.538 of 2002
3
second appeal reiterating the contentions
advanced before the courts below as indicated
above, deserves to be taken note of only for
its rejection.
Appeal is devoid of any merit and it is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
sk/-
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge.