{"id":118582,"date":"2009-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-07T03:26:38","modified_gmt":"2017-07-06T21:56:38","slug":"rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Rugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 125 of 1996(F)\n\n\n\n1. RUGMINI AMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THRESIAMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.V.GEORGE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :15\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                            --------------------------------------\n                                  S.A.No.125 of 1996\n                            --------------------------------------\n                   Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009.\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       This Second Appeal is at the instance of plaintiffs who got a preliminary<\/p>\n
decree for partition of plaint schedule items Nos.1 and 2 which was reversed by<\/p>\n
the first appellate court on the ground that the suit is bad for partial partition.<\/p>\n
According to the appellants schedule properties along with other items were<\/p>\n
acquired by respondent No.2\/defendant No.1, their mother in a family partition as<\/p>\n
per Ext.B1, partition deed of 1116. On 26.6.1979 respondent No.2 assigned<\/p>\n
item No.1     in favour of respondent No.1\/defendant No.2 as per Ext.A1,<\/p>\n
assignment deed as if that property absolutely belonged to her while actually it<\/p>\n
was property of the tavazhi consisting of appellants and respondent No.2. At the<\/p>\n
time of Ext.A1, appellant No.1 was a major but she is not a party in that<\/p>\n
assignment deed.      Appellant Nos.2 to 5 were minors but neither were they<\/p>\n
represented in the assignment deed nor sanction of the court obtained for the<\/p>\n
transfer as required under law. Appellants claimed that assignment does not<\/p>\n
bind their right, interest or title in the suit properties, wanted a declaration that<\/p>\n
suit properties belonged to their tavazhi, to set aside Ext.A1, sale deed, recover<\/p>\n
possession of plaint schedule item No.1 and partition of plaint schedule item<\/p>\n
Nos.1 and 2. Appellants claimed that they are entitled to 1\/6th share each.<\/p>\n
Respondent No.2 did not contest the suit. Respondent No.1, assignee from<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 in respect of item No.1 claimed that appellant No.5 was born in<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
1977 after joint family system was abolished by the Kerala Joint Hindu Family<\/p>\n
System (Abolition) Act, 1976 which came into effect on 1.12.1976 and hence<\/p>\n
appellant No.5 is not entitled to any share in the suit property. Respondent No.1<\/p>\n
also claimed that the suit is bad for partial partition in so far as other items<\/p>\n
belonging to the tavazhi as per Ext.B1 are not included in the suit.            It is<\/p>\n
contended by respondent No.1 that what is assigned to him as per Ext.A1 is the<\/p>\n
absolute property of respondent No.2 and that at any rate, the suit for partition is<\/p>\n
barred by law of limitation. Respondent No.3\/defendant No.3 is a tenant under<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 in the building in plaint schedule item No.1. He also contested<\/p>\n
the suit. Trial court believing the evidence of appellant No.1\/PW1 held that<\/p>\n
appellant No.5 was born on 29.5.1974 and hence he is entitled to a share in item<\/p>\n
Nos.1 and 2. It was found that item Nos.1 and 2 are tavazhi properties since it<\/p>\n
was acquired by respondent No.2 in a family partition as per Ext.B1 and on the<\/p>\n
birth of appellants it transformed into tavazhi properties which are available for<\/p>\n
partition among appellants and respondent No.2. On the issue regarding<\/p>\n
limitation, trial court found that so far as appellant No.1 is concerned, though she<\/p>\n
was a major at the time of Ext.A1 she is not a party to it and hence she can<\/p>\n
ignore the same and seek partition. So far appellant Nos.2 to 5 are concerned<\/p>\n
trial court found that since the sale as per Ext.A1 was without obtaining sanction<\/p>\n
from the court as required under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and<\/p>\n
Guardianship Act sale as against appellant Nos.2 to 5 is voidable at their<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
instance and suit is filed within three years of their attaining majority and hence<\/p>\n
the contention that suit is barred by limitation cannot be accepted. As regards<\/p>\n
the plea of respondent No.1 regarding partial partition it was held that evidence<\/p>\n
of appellant No.1\/PW1 would show that other items dealt with under Ext.B1 are<\/p>\n
in the possession of strangers and hence the suit cannot be said to be bad for<\/p>\n
partial partition. Accordingly a preliminary decree was         passed setting aside<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, assignment deed, declaring that item Nos.1 and 2 are properties of the<\/p>\n
tavazhi and directing      partition of the said items into six equal shares.<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 challenged the judgment and preliminary decree.                  First<\/p>\n
appellate court confirmed all the findings entered by the trial court except       as<\/p>\n
regards as partial partition. First appellate court held that failure of appellants<\/p>\n
to seek partition of all properties belonging to the tavazhi inspite of a specific<\/p>\n
contention raised by respondent No.1 would result         in injustice and inequity to<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 in that, had the entire properties been brought up for partition,<\/p>\n
equities could have been worked out so that share of respondent No.2 could<\/p>\n
have been allotted to        respondent No.1 which would have satisfied           the<\/p>\n
acquisition made as per Ext.A1. So far as the issue regarding entitlement of<\/p>\n
appellant No.5 for share is concerned, that issue was not considered since the<\/p>\n
first appellate court found that suit is otherwise not maintainable. Judgment and<\/p>\n
decree of the first appellate court are under challenge in this Second Appeal.<\/p>\n
The substantial question of law framed for a decision is whether finding of the<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
first appellate court that     suit  is bad for partial partition is legally correct?<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 requested that in so far as the first<\/p>\n
appellate court has not considered the correctness of the finding of trial court as<\/p>\n
to entitlement of appellant No.5 for partition, that question also may be<\/p>\n
considered in the Second Appeal.               Accordingly after hearing both sides<\/p>\n
question whether trial court was legally justified in holding that appellant No.5 is<\/p>\n
entitled to partition is also framed as a substantial question of law.<\/p>\n
       2.     So far as      partiability of the properties is concerned, it is not<\/p>\n
disputed before me that though respondent No.2 got the properties by Ext.B1,<\/p>\n
partition effected in her family on the birth of appellant Nos.1 to 5 character and<\/p>\n
nature of the properties in the possession of respondent No.2 changed into<\/p>\n
tavazhi properties.     Courts below      rightly found that the suit properties are<\/p>\n
partiable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.     So far as issue regarding partial partition is concerned, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for appellants contend that the first appellate court was not justified in<\/p>\n
holding that the suit is bad for partial partition without considering the evidence of<\/p>\n
appellant No.1\/PW1 that other items to which respondent No.2 is otherwise<\/p>\n
entitled as per Ext.B1 are in the possession of strangers and there is no contra<\/p>\n
evidence. It is the contention of learned counsel that respondent No.1 not being<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
a member of the family is concerned only with item No.1 of the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
and hence she cannot raise a plea of partial partition.      Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 points out from Ext.B1 that the E schedule which was allotted<\/p>\n
to respondent No.2 in the family partition (Ext.B1) took in eight items including<\/p>\n
item Nos.1 and 2 and further, it was recited in Ext.B1 that on the death of holder<\/p>\n
of G schedule property, 1\/4th of that item also went to respondent No.2.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel submits that in that situation entire properties over which<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 acquired right as per Ext.B1 must have been sought to be<\/p>\n
partitioned. Learned counsel points out that inspite of specific contention in the<\/p>\n
written statement appellants have not amended the plaint to bring in said items<\/p>\n
also and seek partition. Learned counsel would refer to me the decision in<\/p>\n
Gopalan v. Vasu (1986 KLT 1100) and contend that to work out equity<\/p>\n
between the parties, it is necessary that entire properties are brought up for<\/p>\n
partition. Learned counsel submits that the said decision did not concern the<\/p>\n
right of alienee from one of the sharers as in the present case where, had the<\/p>\n
entire properties been     brought up for partition there could have been an<\/p>\n
equitable division without causing injustice to respondent No.1. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
has placed reliance on the decision of        the Andhra Pradesh High Court in<\/p>\n
N.Jangi Reddy & Others v. Yellaram Narsimha Reddy & Others<\/p>\n
(AIR 2008 (NOC) 1057).\n<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
       4.      Argument of learned counsel for appellants that respondent No.1<\/p>\n
being only an assignee of item No.1 could not raise a plea based on partial<\/p>\n
partition,   I am afraid cannot be sustained.     May be, respondent No.1 has no<\/p>\n
direct interest in the other properties referred to in Ext.B1 but as assignee of item<\/p>\n
No.1 she steps into the shoe of respondent No.2 who is a sharer and hence can<\/p>\n
resist the suit for partition on any ground available to her assignor. More so,<\/p>\n
she is requesting for an equitable division of item No.1 along with all the<\/p>\n
properties available for partition in which case the claim of respondent No.1 as<\/p>\n
per Ext.A1      according to her, could     be satisfied by allotting the share of<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 to her. Hence it is open to respondent No.1 to raise the plea of<\/p>\n
partial partition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.      Then the question is whether first appellate court was justified in<\/p>\n
reversing the finding of trial court that suit is not bad for partial partition. Both<\/p>\n
sides placed reliance on the decision in Gopalan’s case (supra). Principle laid<\/p>\n
down in that case is that even when            partition is in respect of joint family<\/p>\n
properties, there is no inflexible rule that there cannot be partial partition and<\/p>\n
that in a given set of facts it is open to the court to entertain a suit for partial<\/p>\n
partition. In that case this Court observed,<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
             “6.   It may be always desirable, in order to avoid<\/p>\n
             multiplicity of suits and consequent harassment and<\/p>\n
             inconvenience that as far as possible all the properties<\/p>\n
             should be included even in a suit for partition of co-\n<\/p>\n
             ownership properties.     But in such cases it is not<\/p>\n
             essential that all the properties held in common should<\/p>\n
             be brought in the common hotchpot in the same suit.\n<\/p>\n
             Even in such cases, depending upon the facts and<\/p>\n
             circumstances and the nature of properties, it is<\/p>\n
             competent for the court to order the plaintiff to include<\/p>\n
             the remaining properties also subject to the question<\/p>\n
             of jurisdiction.   A suit for partition of co-ownership<\/p>\n
             properties cannot be thrown out on the ground of<\/p>\n
             partial partition.   The ordinary rule that a suit for<\/p>\n
             partition is not maintainable cannot apply in case of<\/p>\n
             co-owners having distinct rights. Where the causes of<\/p>\n
             action and the claims are not identical, it may not be<\/p>\n
             desirable to insist on the compliance of the rule<\/p>\n
             against partial partition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             7.      The rule against partial partition is only one of<\/p>\n
             equity and convenience. Therefore, it is better to limit<\/p>\n
             the rule in its application to properties over which the<\/p>\n
             parties have community of interest and unity of<\/p>\n
             possession. If partial partition can be had without<\/p>\n
             inconvenience to the other sharers and if it will not<\/p>\n
             stand in the way of equities being adjusted, it is not<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
               necessary to insist that all properties will have to be<\/p>\n
               scheduled.     Plaintiff is the master of the litigation.<\/p>\n
               Normally he is the person to decide what are the<\/p>\n
               reliefs to be claimed and who are all to be impleaded.\n<\/p>\n
               Of course, these are all not to be left to the sweet will<\/p>\n
               and pleasure of the plaintiff. His choice could always<\/p>\n
               be only subject to the relevant provisions of law. But<\/p>\n
               normally he cannot       be compelled to fight persons<\/p>\n
               against whom he does not want to fight.        So also he<\/p>\n
               cannot be compelled to schedule properties which<\/p>\n
               according to him are not partiable. As earlier stated<\/p>\n
               these are not hard and fast propositions.”\n<\/p>\n
So it is not the inflexible rule even in partition of joint family properties that the<\/p>\n
entire properties must have been brought up for partition. Another decision that<\/p>\n
would throw light on the issue is                 Parameswara           Menon v.<\/p>\n
Sachidananda Menon<\/a> (1970 KLT 1031). There it was held that the<\/p>\n
argument that suit for partition of joint family properties is bad if some item or the<\/p>\n
other is omitted is unsound although normally such a suit should embrace all the<\/p>\n
assets of     the family.   But there may be circumstances in which practical<\/p>\n
considerations may justify the institution and continuance of a suit for partition<\/p>\n
where certain items of co-parcenary property are not included. There is no legal<\/p>\n
inhibition if there are justifying features in allowing a suit for partial partition.<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
Reference was made to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rajendra<\/p>\n
Kumar Bose v. Brojendra Kumar Bose (AIR 1923 Calcutta 501), of<\/p>\n
the Rajastan High Court in Sambhudutt and others v. Srinarain and<\/p>\n
others (AIR 1954 Raj. 269) and the Patna High Court in S.M.A.Samad<\/p>\n
and others v. Shahid Hussain and others<\/a> ( AIR 1963 Patna 375).<\/p>\n
In that decision a distinction was made between partition of joint family property<\/p>\n
(joint tenants) and partition among tenants-in-common. The reason for the<\/p>\n
distinction is that in the former case, unlike in the latter case, there is unity of<\/p>\n
title, interest and possession over each and every item of property and hence<\/p>\n
the normal rule is that partition should be of entire properties of the joint<\/p>\n
family. In the case of partition between co-parceners (in respect of joint family<\/p>\n
properties) the entire property must be thrown in to hotchpot except for certain<\/p>\n
well recognized exceptions. Where a member of a joint hindu family who broke<\/p>\n
up the joint status wants the joint family property to be divided, the cause of<\/p>\n
action arises at one time and he must therefore include every item of property in<\/p>\n
the suit. It was pointed out that so far as tenants-in-common are concerned as<\/p>\n
there is no unity of title and interest but only unity of possession it is not<\/p>\n
necessary that cause of action for partition of every item of property held in<\/p>\n
common must arise at the same time. No doubt, in the matter of partition of<\/p>\n
properties held by tenants-in-common principle regarding partial partition may<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
apply depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. But I must bear-in-<\/p>\n
mind that so far as the partition of co-ownership properties in the possession of<\/p>\n
tenants-in-common is concerned, as pointed out by                 Wanchoo C.J. in<\/p>\n
Sambhudutt and others’ case (supra)        it is not necessary that cause for action<\/p>\n
seeking partition should arise only once. It may arise at different times in respect<\/p>\n
of different items of co-ownership properties. Hence the rule regarding partial<\/p>\n
partition as it applies to the case of joint family properties cannot as such be<\/p>\n
applied in the case of partition of co-ownership properties in the possession of<\/p>\n
tenants-in-common.       In the present case since the Kerala Joint Hindu Family<\/p>\n
System (Abolition) Act came into force on 1.12.1976, there is a notional partition<\/p>\n
in the tavazhi and hence the members of the tavazhi must be treated                as<\/p>\n
tenants-in-common in respect of the properties belonging to the tavazhi after<\/p>\n
1.12.1976. Based on the above legal position I shall consider whether in this<\/p>\n
case the suit can be said to be bad for partial partition.<\/p>\n
       6.      So far as availability of other items for partition referred to by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for respondent No.1 is concerned, appellant No.1\/PW1 while<\/p>\n
giving evidence stated that those items are not available for partition since it is in<\/p>\n
the possession of strangers. I do not find any contra evidence in that regard.<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 when examined as DW1 has not even adverted to that aspect.<\/p>\n
That means what is available is the evidence of appellant No.1 as PW1 that<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
those properties are not available for partition. A further fact which persuades<\/p>\n
me not to apply the rule against partial partition is that respondent No.1 while<\/p>\n
acquiring item No.1 as per Ext.A1 should have been aware that the properties<\/p>\n
belonged to the tavazhi but the properties were acquired from respondent No.2<\/p>\n
as if it is the absolute property of respondent No.2. Having regard to these<\/p>\n
circumstances I am not inclined to think that in this case, for the reason of all<\/p>\n
other items allegedly available for partition not being brought up the suit must<\/p>\n
fail. Decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in N.Jangi Reddy’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
relied on by learned counsel for respondent No.1 concerned joint family property<\/p>\n
where ofcourse non-inclusion of all items was found to be affecting the right of<\/p>\n
alienees and it was held that suit is bad for partial partition. I must bear-in-mind<\/p>\n
that in this case      apart from pleading that suit is bad for partial partition<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 did not incorporate in the written statement the other items of<\/p>\n
properties available for partition. In the circumstances trial court was justified in<\/p>\n
holding that suit is maintainable. First appellate court appears to have been<\/p>\n
carried away by the impression that if item Nos.1 and 2 alone are partitioned in<\/p>\n
the way asked for,     it will result in injustice to respondent No.1 and hence the<\/p>\n
suit is bad for partial partition. Other relevant circumstances which I have<\/p>\n
discussed above have not been considered.            Hence answering the substantial<\/p>\n
question of law framed in favour of the appellants I hold that the finding of the<\/p>\n
first appellate court that the suit is bad for partial partition cannot be sustained. I<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
hold that the suit is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       7.     Then the question for consideration is whether finding of the trial<\/p>\n
court that appellant No.5 is entitled to share is correct. That issue depends on<\/p>\n
the question whether birth of appellant No.5 was before or after 1.12.1976.<\/p>\n
According to the appellants it was on 29.5.1974. But respondent No.1 would say<\/p>\n
that birth was after 1977 and hence in view of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family<\/p>\n
System (Abolition) Act, 1975 appellant No.5 having born after 1.12.1976 is not<\/p>\n
entitled to share in the family property.    Trial court found   in favour of the<\/p>\n
appellants merely relying on the evidence of appellant No.1\/PW1. Trial court<\/p>\n
observed that the version of appellant No.1\/PW1 regarding date of birth of<\/p>\n
appellant No.5 was not challenged in cross examination. That, I have to say is<\/p>\n
a factual mistake. Going by the evidence of PW1 in cross examination I find<\/p>\n
that she was subjected to cross examination regarding date of birth of appellant<\/p>\n
No.5 spoken to by PW1. PW1 claimed that birth of appellant No.5 was intimated<\/p>\n
to the Registrar of Births and Deaths and that the register maintained in that<\/p>\n
office would reveal the date of birth.  Admittedly no document from that office is<\/p>\n
summoned or produced to prove the date of birth of appellant No.5. When a<\/p>\n
document which was required to be proved was not proved it should result in an<\/p>\n
adverse inference against the appellants. It is true that when respondent No.1<\/p>\n
was examined as DW1 she stated that she has not enquired about date of birth<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                          13<\/span><\/p>\n
of appellant No.5. I must bear-in-mind that she is an alienee from respondent<\/p>\n
No.2 and not a member of the tavazhi. She has denied the allegation that birth<\/p>\n
of appellant No.5 was prior to 1.12.1976.           In that situation it was the<\/p>\n
responsibility of the appellants to prove by acceptable evidence that birth of<\/p>\n
appellant No.5 was prior to 1.12.1976 and therefore he is entitled to a share in<\/p>\n
the property. It is relevant to note that even in the plaint there is no reference to<\/p>\n
the date of birth of appellant No.5 and only in the cause title while describing<\/p>\n
age of appellant No.5, it is stated that he is aged 12 years (on the date of suit –<\/p>\n
20.11.1985) in which case, his birth must have been in the year 1973 and not<\/p>\n
29.5.1974 as stated by appellant No.1\/PW1. As such I am inclined to think<\/p>\n
that trial court was not legally correct in holding that date of birth of appellant<\/p>\n
No.5 was on 29.5.1974.      Trial court has proceeded on the basis that version of<\/p>\n
appellant No.1 as PW1 regarding date of birth of appellant No.5 is not<\/p>\n
challenged, which I said, is factually wrong. Since the finding is based on the<\/p>\n
evidence of appellant No.1\/PW1 under the impression that the said evidence is<\/p>\n
not under challenge, the finding involved a substantial question of law. I hold<\/p>\n
that appellants failed to prove that appellant No.5 was born prior to 1.12.1976<\/p>\n
and hence is entitled to a share in the suit properties.<\/p>\n
              8.     Though trial court set aside Ext.A1 as a whole, that also<\/p>\n
cannot be sustained to          the extent it concerned share of respondent<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                        14<\/span><\/p>\n
No.2\/defendant No.1 in item Nos.1 and 2 for she was competent to transfer her<\/p>\n
share to respondent No.1 since the transfer was subsequent to 1.12.1976.<\/p>\n
Hence Ext.A1 can be set aside only to the extent it concerned appellant Nos.1<\/p>\n
to 4. In the light of what I have stated above, judgment and decree of the first<\/p>\n
appellate court has to be set aside. At the same time the preliminary decree<\/p>\n
passed by the trial court requires modification in that appellant No.5 is not<\/p>\n
entitled to any share in the suit properties. Substantial questions of law framed<\/p>\n
are answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
       Resultantly, Second Appeal is allowed in part in the following lines:<\/p>\n
       i.     Judgment and decree of the first appellate court are set aside.<\/p>\n
       ii.    The preliminary decree passed by the trial court is modified to the<\/p>\n
following extent:\n<\/p>\n
              (a)    The preliminary decree to the extent that it allowed share to<\/p>\n
appellant No.5 is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
              (b)    Schedule properties shall be divided among appellant Nos.1<\/p>\n
to 4 and respondent No.2 in equal shares.\n<\/p>\n
              (c)     Share of respondent No.2 shall be allotted to respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 to the extent it can be confined to item No.1 and so far as it does not<\/p>\n
exceed the area referred to in Ext.A1.\n<\/p>\n
       iii.   Question whether respondent No.1 is entitled to value of<\/p>\n
improvements concerning item No.1 shall be decided by the final decree court.<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                                       15<\/span><\/p>\n
      iv.    The claim of respondent No.1 for allotment of the portion where<\/p>\n
the building is put up in item No.1 shall be considered by the final decree<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
      v.     Appellant Nos.1 to 4 will be entitled to get share of mesne profits of<\/p>\n
item No.1 from respondent No.1 at the rate fixed by the trial court.<\/p>\n
      vi.    It will be open to appellant Nos.1 to 4 or respondent Nos.1 and 2<\/p>\n
on payment of court fee to apply for passing final decree and allotting their<\/p>\n
share.\n<\/p>\n
      vii.   Cost shall come out of the estate.\n<\/p>\n
             C.M.P.No.292 of 1996 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                        Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n
SA No.125\/1996<\/p>\n
                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
                     Thomas P.Joseph, J.\n<\/p>\n
                     S.A.No.125 of 1996<\/p>\n
                     JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                     15th December, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Rugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 125 of 1996(F) 1. RUGMINI AMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. THRESIAMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.V.GEORGE For Respondent :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :15\/12\/2009 O R D E R THOMAS P. JOSEPH, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118582","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-06T21:56:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-06T21:56:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3696,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Rugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-06T21:56:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-06T21:56:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-06T21:56:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009"},"wordCount":3696,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009","name":"Rugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-06T21:56:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rugmini-amma-vs-thresiamma-on-15-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rugmini Amma vs Thresiamma on 15 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118582","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118582"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118582\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118582"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118582"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118582"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}