{"id":189330,"date":"2007-10-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007"},"modified":"2017-12-10T15:53:15","modified_gmt":"2017-12-10T10:23:15","slug":"a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"A.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
A.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS No. 576 of 1992(A)\n\n\n\n1. A.M.PADMINI AMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :24\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                  KURIAN JOSEPH &  HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.\n\n                ------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                     A.S.No.576 of 1992  & Cross- objections\n\n                ------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                               Dated: October  24, 2007\n\n\n                                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        This   Appeal   Suit   arises   from   the   judgment   and   decree   dated<\/p>\n
21.12.1991   in   O.S.No.92\/1988   on   the   file   of   the   Sub   Court,   Thalassery.<\/p>\n
Defendants   Nos.12   and   24  are  the  appellants  herein.     The  plaintiffs   and<\/p>\n
defendant No.3 have jointly preferred the memorandum of cross-objection<\/p>\n
challenging   the   finding   of   the   court   below   in   regard   to   item   No.6   of   the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property.           The parties herein are referred to hereafter as<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and defendants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        2.     O.S.No.92\/1988   is   a   suit   for   partition   praying   to   pass   a<\/p>\n
preliminary decree for partition of item Nos.1 and 2  in the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
properties   into   25   shares,   to   allot   18   shares   to   the   plaintiffs   and   for<\/p>\n
partition of item Nos.3 to 6 in the plaint schedule properties  into 23 shares<\/p>\n
and to allot 18 such shares to the plaintiffs with the past and future profits<\/p>\n
and for such other consequential reliefs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        3.     The   facts   necessary   for   the   disposal   of   the   appeal   are   as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        The plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit are the descendants of<\/p>\n
the   common   ancestress   Velluva   Puthiyaveettil   Lakshmi   Amma.     The   A<\/p>\n
schedule attached to the plaint is the genealogy of the parties.  The plaint<\/p>\n
B schedule are the immovable properties belonging to the plaintiffs and the<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
defendants.    The  plaintiffs  are some of the children  and grandchildren of<\/p>\n
Ammukutty Amma who is the only daughter of Parvathi Amma.   Parvathi<\/p>\n
Amma   is   the   daughter   of   the   common   ancestress   Lakshmi   Amma.<\/p>\n
Parvathi Amma  died in the year 1964.  Ammukutty Amma died in the year<\/p>\n
1949.   The 1st defendant   is the only son alive at the time of filing the suit<\/p>\n
amongst   the   children   of   Parvathi   Amma   and   he   was   the   eldest   male<\/p>\n
member among the tavazhi members who became co-owners as a result<\/p>\n
of Act 30 of 1976.   Till 1976 he was the Karanavan of the tavazhi and as<\/p>\n
the eldest male member, he was managing the properties.<\/p>\n
        4.     Item   Nos.1   and   2   were   allotted   to   Lakshmi   Amma   and   her<\/p>\n
descendants as per Ext.A1 partition karar dated 13.6.1933 entered into in<\/p>\n
the family by name Velluva Puthiyaveettil.  In item No.1 there is a  house in<\/p>\n
which the 1st defendant and his family members are residing.  Item Nos.3,<\/p>\n
4 and 5 originally belonged to Arathikandoth Kannan Nambiar and as per<\/p>\n
Ext.A2   registered   will  executed   by  him   on   31.8.1924,   the  said   properties<\/p>\n
were bequeathed to Parvathi Amma and all her children to be enjoyed as<\/p>\n
tavazhi.  Kannan Nambiar died in 1929.  Item Nos.3, 4 and 5 were enjoyed<\/p>\n
as tavazhi properties by Parvathi Amma and her descendants.  Item No.6<\/p>\n
is   the   last   item   of   property   scheduled   as   B   schedule.     Item   No.6   was<\/p>\n
purchased by Parvathi Amma and her children  as per Ext.A3 assignment<\/p>\n
deed  dated  9.11.1942.     According  to  the   plaintiffs  the  consideration  paid<\/p>\n
for item No.6 was out of the income from item Nos.3 to 5 which the tavazhi<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                            Page numbers<\/p>\n
got by Ext.A2 registered will dated 31.8.1924 and as such item No.6 also<\/p>\n
belongs to the tavazhi of Parvathi Amma and her descendants.   In short,<\/p>\n
according to the plaintiffs,  item Nos.1 and 2 belonged to the larger tavazhi<\/p>\n
of Lakshmi Amma and item Nos.3 to 6  belonged to the tavazhi of Parvathi<\/p>\n
Amma.   Besides the aforesaid properties, the tavazhi also owned several<\/p>\n
other items of tenanted properties.  The respective tenants purchased the<\/p>\n
right,  title  and  interest  of  the  tavazhi by separate  proceedings before  the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal.   The plaintiffs claim that defendants 1 and 2 had received<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/-   as  purchase   money  which  belongs  to  the   tavazhi.     The   said<\/p>\n
amount   of   Rs.20,000\/-   is   shown   as   C   schedule   and   they   have   further<\/p>\n
claimed their share of the purchase money as well.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        5.   It is pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiffs now understand that<\/p>\n
the   1st  defendant   in   collusion   with   the   2nd  defendant   had   created   some<\/p>\n
false documents to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs, that such documents<\/p>\n
are not  binding  on  the plaintiffs  and  neither  the  1st  defendant  nor the  2nd<\/p>\n
defendant are entitled to any sort of reservation with respect to any portion<\/p>\n
of items Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties.   In paragraph 9(b)<\/p>\n
inserted   by   way   of   amendment   it   is   averred   that   the   supplemental   25th<\/p>\n
defendant   had   assigned   30   cents   of   land   in   item   No.1   in   favour   of<\/p>\n
supplemental defendants 26 to 29 during the pendency of the suit.  Those<\/p>\n
documents   are   not   binding   on   the   plaintiffs   and   other   members   of   the<\/p>\n
tavazhi.   In paragraph 9(c) inserted it is further alleged that the gift deed<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                                 Page numbers<\/p>\n
executed by the 1st defendant in favour of his son who is the supplemental<\/p>\n
34th defendant is also a collusive document not binding on other members<\/p>\n
of the tarwad.  In paragraph 10(a) inserted by way of amendment it is also<\/p>\n
pleaded that the 1st  defendant had created some documents with respect<\/p>\n
to   item   No.1   in   favour   of   his   two   daughters   who   are   impleaded   as<\/p>\n
supplemental defendants 24 and 25 in the suit.   In paragraph 10(b) of the<\/p>\n
plaint as inserted, it is further stated that the special right claimed by the 1st<\/p>\n
defendant   on   the   strength   of     lease   deed   in   his   favour   dated   3.8.1960<\/p>\n
(Ext.B1)   is   a   fraudulent   document   not   binding   on   the   members   of   the<\/p>\n
tarwad, that the lessor is the father-in-law of the 1st defendant and that he<\/p>\n
had  no right to lease the same,  that  the purchase certificate obtained  by<\/p>\n
the   1st  defendant   making   the   2nd  defendant   as   the   respondent   is   not<\/p>\n
binding on the tarwad and so also the purchase of  items Nos.1 and 2 in<\/p>\n
the name of the 1st  defendant was   behind the back of other members of<\/p>\n
the  tarwad  and   therefore     special   right   claimed   by   the   1st  defendant   and<\/p>\n
others   on   the   basis   of   the   illegal   lease   and   purchase   certificate   are   not<\/p>\n
valid and binding on the plaintiffs.  It is also alleged in paragraph 10(b) that<\/p>\n
the   plaintiffs   are   entitled   to   get   their   share   in   the   property   with   past   and<\/p>\n
future profits ignoring all the documents put forward by the defendants to<\/p>\n
which they are not parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         7.     Defendants   Nos.1   and   12   filed   a   joint   written   statement<\/p>\n
contending inter alia that the plaint item Nos.1 and 2 exclusively belong to<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
the 1st defendant,   item Nos.1 and 2 are not partible, that plaint item No.1<\/p>\n
originally   belonged   in   jenm   right   to   Velluva   Puthiyaveettil   tarwad,   during<\/p>\n
March 1952 this property was orally leased by the then Karanavan of the<\/p>\n
tarwad Sri Krishnan Nambiar in favour of the 1st defendant on kuzhikanom<\/p>\n
right,   that   subsequently   in   the   year   1960   Krishnan   Nambiar   executed   a<\/p>\n
kuzhikanom   pattadaram   in   favour   of   the   1st  defendant   as   per   Ext.B1<\/p>\n
registered document No.1326\/1960, that on the basis of the oral lease and<\/p>\n
subsequent   lease   deed   (Ext.B1),   he   obtained   purchase   certificate   in<\/p>\n
respect of item Nos.1 and 2 as per the proceedings in SM No.30\/1983 and<\/p>\n
thus   he   was   holding   the   properties   on   exclusive   rights.       It   is   also<\/p>\n
contended that the 1st defendant is residing in the house in item No.1 with<\/p>\n
his family members and that he has re-modelled the house therein.     It is<\/p>\n
also alleged in the written statement that he had gifted 46.5 cents of land<\/p>\n
in   favour   of   his   daughter   Sathyabhama   as   per   document   No.3062\/1986<\/p>\n
and in 1987 he had assigned 30 cents in favour of his daughter Rathi as<\/p>\n
per document No.717\/1987.  In the written statement the defendants have<\/p>\n
also     stated   that   these   defendants   have   no   objection   in   partitioning   item<\/p>\n
Nos.3 to 6 and they are also entitled to get their share with mesne profits<\/p>\n
in item Nos.3 to 6.  It is also averred that the tenancy of the 1st defendant<\/p>\n
over item Nos.1 and 2 was admitted by the tarwad of the plaintiffs and the<\/p>\n
defendants   and   therefore   it   is   submitted   that   item   Nos.1   and   2   may   be<\/p>\n
excluded from partition and there can be a decree for partition in respect of<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
the   other   items.     In   the   additional   written   statement   filed   by   the   same<\/p>\n
defendants   it is further averred that the right of the plaintiffs, if any, over<\/p>\n
item Nos.1 and 2 is barred by adverse possession and limitation in view of<\/p>\n
the 1st defendant’s exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same.   It is<\/p>\n
also pleaded in the additional written statement that item No.3 has lost its<\/p>\n
character as tavazhi property by virtue of document No.320 of 1929,  that<\/p>\n
as per the said document item No.3 had been given on leasehold right to<\/p>\n
deceased   Parvathi   Amma   and   her   children   alone   and   the   same   cannot<\/p>\n
devolve   upon   her   grandchildren   and   therefore   the   said   item   had   to   be<\/p>\n
divided into 4 equal shares which will devolve upon Parvathi Amma’s four<\/p>\n
children   by   name   deceased   Madhavan   Nambiar,   Ammukutty   Amma,<\/p>\n
Kunhikannan Nambiar and Govindankutty Nambiar.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        8.     Defendant Nos.4 and 5 in their written statement admitted that<\/p>\n
plaint   B   schedule   properties   belong   to   the   plaintiffs   and   the   defendants<\/p>\n
except   item   No.6.     According   to   defendant   Nos.4and   5,   item   No.6   was<\/p>\n
purchased   by   Madhavan   Nambiar   which   was  later   assigned     to   Parvathi<\/p>\n
Amma   and   her   children   as   per   the   assignment   deed   dated     9.11.1942<\/p>\n
(Ext.A3), that the said property was not purchased out of the income from<\/p>\n
item  Nos.3 to 5 and it does  not belong to the tavazhi.     According to the<\/p>\n
said   defendants,   item   Nos.1   and   2   belonged   to   the   larger   tavazhi   of<\/p>\n
Lakshmi   Amma,   item   No.6   is   not   liable   to   be   partitioned   among   the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs   and   the   defendants,   but   is   to   be   partitioned   among   defendant<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                              Page numbers<\/p>\n
Nos.1  and 4  to 8  and the legal heirs of  Ammukutty Amma and  that item<\/p>\n
No.3 exclusively belongs to the four children of Parvathi Amma etc.<\/p>\n
        9.   Defendant No.24 in the written statement supported defendants<\/p>\n
Nos.1  and   12   and   pleaded   that   he   adopts   the   written   statement   filed   by<\/p>\n
defendants Nos.1 and 12.  Defendant Nos.2, 3, 6 to 8,  25, 26 and 27 also<\/p>\n
filed written statements  supporting either the plaintiffs or defendant Nos.1<\/p>\n
and 12.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        10.     On   the   basis   of   the   pleadings   the   court   below   framed   seven<\/p>\n
issues,   the   evidence   of   Pw.1   and   Dws.1   to   3   are   recorded   and   marked<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A8 and B1 to B20.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        11.         The   court   below,   after   examining   the   evidence   on   record,<\/p>\n
entered   findings   on   all   the   issues   raised.     The   court   below   held   that<\/p>\n
Exts.B1 registered kuzhikanom pattadaram  executed by the Karanavan of<\/p>\n
Velluva   Puthiyaveettil   tarwad   Sri   Krishnan   Nambiar   in   favour   of   the   1st<\/p>\n
defendant, a member of the tarwad, and Ext.B2 kuzhikanom marupattom<\/p>\n
deed are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and other members of the<\/p>\n
tavazhi  and the  suit  properties.    The  court also held that  Ext.B3  order  of<\/p>\n
the   Land   Tribunal   in   SM   No.30\/1983   and   Ext.B5   purchase   certificate<\/p>\n
issued  by   the   Land   Tribunal   to   the   1st  defendant     are  also   not   valid  and<\/p>\n
binding   and   will   not   disqualify   the   plaintiffs   and   other   members   of   the<\/p>\n
tavazhi from claiming partition of the suit properties.   The court below did<\/p>\n
not accept the contention of the plaintiffs that item No.6 was purchased out<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                               Page numbers<\/p>\n
of the income from item Nos.3 to 5 and the fund left by deceased Kannan<\/p>\n
Nambiar and,   therefore, held that item No.6 is not liable to be partitioned<\/p>\n
among the members of the tavazhi of Parvathi Amma.   It   held that item<\/p>\n
No.6   in   the   plaint   B   schedule   property   is   only   liable   to   be   partitioned<\/p>\n
among   defendants   Nos.1   and   4   to   8   and   the   legal   representatives   of<\/p>\n
Parvathi Amma.   The claim of defendants 1, 12 and 25 that the rights of<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs, if any, over item Nos.1 and 2 is lost by adverse possession<\/p>\n
and limitation was negatived.  The court further held that the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
title   and   joint   possession   over  items   1   to   5  in  the   plaint   B  schedule   and<\/p>\n
plaintiffs   Nos.1,   7,   8,   12,   15   and   18   have   title  and   possession   over  item<\/p>\n
No.6 and that the properties are available for partition.  On the basis of the<\/p>\n
findings as stated above, the court below passed a preliminary decree for<\/p>\n
partition in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        That   item   Nos.1   and   2   in   the   plaint   schedule   properties   be<\/p>\n
        partitioned into 25 equal shares by metes and bounds of which the<\/p>\n
        plaintiffs  together entitled to 18\/25 shares;<\/p>\n
        Defendants   Nos.1   to   3   will   be   entitled   to   one   such   share   each,<\/p>\n
        defendants   Nos.4   and   5   together   entitled   to   get   one   such   share   .<\/p>\n
        defendants   6   to   8   together   entitled   to   get   one   such   share,<\/p>\n
        defendants   9   to   15   together   entitled   to   one   such   share   and<\/p>\n
        defendants   16   to   23   together     entitled   to   one   such   share.     The<\/p>\n
        remaining defendants  are not entitled to get any shares in items 1<\/p>\n
        and 2.<\/p>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
AS 576\/1992                               Page numbers<\/p>\n
        That item Nos.3 to 5 in the plaint schedule property be partitioned<\/p>\n
        into   23   equal   shares   by   metes   and   bounds   of   which   the   plaintiffs<\/p>\n
        together entitled to get 18\/23 shares, defendants  4 and 5 together<\/p>\n
        entitled to one such share and defendants 6 to 8 together entitled to<\/p>\n
        get one such share.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
        That item No.6 be partitioned into four equal shares by metes and<\/p>\n
        bounds of which the 1st defendant is entitled to get one such share,<\/p>\n
        defendants 4 and 5 together entitled to one such share, defendants<\/p>\n
        6 to 8 together will be entitled to get one such share and plaintiffs 1,<\/p>\n
        7, 8, 12, 15 and 18 and defendants 2 and 3 together entitled to get<\/p>\n
        one such share.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
        The   plaintiffs   and   other   defendants   are   entitled   to   get   share   of<\/p>\n
        mesne profits from the 1st defendant in respect of item No.1 and the<\/p>\n
        quantum   of   the   same   will   be   decided   in   final   decree   proceedings.<\/p>\n
        The quantum  of  mesne  profits and  the liability of  paying the  same<\/p>\n
        in   respect   of   item   Nos.3   to   6   is   left   open   and   the   same   will   be<\/p>\n
        decided in the final decree proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        12.  The suit is one for partition of the plaint B schedule items 1 to 6.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
It is the common case of the parties that item Nos.4 and 5 in the plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule   belongs  to   the   tavazhi   of   the   plaintiffs   and   the   defendants   and<\/p>\n
those items are available for partition.   The dispute is only with respect to<\/p>\n
items 1, 2, 3 and 6 in the plaint B schedule.   Defendants Nos.12 and 24<\/p>\n
who  are   the   appellants   in   the   above   appeal   attacked   the   findings   of   the<\/p>\n
court below that items 1 and 2 are partible, the findings on the question of<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                              Page numbers<\/p>\n
adverse possession and ouster and also attacked the findings of the court<\/p>\n
below in respect of item 3 and claimed that the appellants are also entitled<\/p>\n
to a share in item No.3.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        13.       It   is   an   admitted   fact   that   items   1   and   2   were   originally<\/p>\n
belonged to the tarwad of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 23 and that the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs   and   defendants   1   to   23   are   the   descendants   of   the   common<\/p>\n
ancestress Velluva Puthiyaveettil Lakshmi Amma and items 1 and 2 in the<\/p>\n
plaint   B   schedule   were   allotted   to   the   share   of   the   aforesaid   Lakshmi<\/p>\n
Amma and her descendants under Ext.A1 partition karar.  It is the  case of<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs that items 3 to 5 originally belonged to Palathikandoth Kannan<\/p>\n
Nambiar and he bequeathed the properties under Ext.A2 will in favour of<\/p>\n
Parvathi Amma and her children and that properties belong to the tavazhi<\/p>\n
of   Parvathi   Amma.     The   plaintiffs   also   pleaded   that   item   No.6     was<\/p>\n
purchased under Ext.A3 assignment deed with the income from items 3 to<\/p>\n
5 and therefore item No.6 property also partakes the character of tavazhi<\/p>\n
property.   It  is also the case of  the plaintiffs   that  the  1st  defendant  is the<\/p>\n
Karanavan of the tavazhi, that he is residing in the house situated in item<\/p>\n
No.1 with his family members and that he is in possession and enjoyment<\/p>\n
of the properties for and on behalf of other members of the tarwad.   The<\/p>\n
plaintiffs contended that items 1 and 2 are liable to be partitioned among<\/p>\n
the members of the larger tavazhi and items 3 to 6 among the members of<\/p>\n
the sub-tavazhi of Parvathi Amma.  Defendants Nos.1, 12 and 24 opposed<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                                Page numbers<\/p>\n
the claim of the plaintiffs and other supporting defendants in items 1and 2.<\/p>\n
The 1st  defendant   claimed exclusive right and possession of items 1 and<\/p>\n
2.     According   to   him     items   1   and   2   were   orally   leased   by   Krishnan<\/p>\n
Nambiar,   the   then   Karanavan,   in   the   year   1952   in   his   favour   and<\/p>\n
subsequently Krishnan Nambiar executed Ext.B1 kuzhikanom pattadaram<\/p>\n
in his favour and on the same day he executed Ext.B2 marupat and ever<\/p>\n
since   he   is   in   exclusive   possession   and   enjoyment   of   the   properties   on<\/p>\n
absolute   right.     According   to   him,   on   the   strength   of   the   oral   lease   and<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 kuzhikanom pattadaram  he obtained Ext.B5 purchase certificate in<\/p>\n
respect of items 1 and 2.   Since he is the absolute owner of the property<\/p>\n
by   virtue   of   the   aforesaid   documents,   he   assigned   some   portion   of   the<\/p>\n
property in favour of his children.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        14.   The   point   argued   before   us   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
appellants is that the1st defendant has got absolute right over items 1 and<\/p>\n
2   and,   therefore,   the   said   items   are   not   partible.     They   attacked   the<\/p>\n
findings   and   reasonings   of   the   court   below.     None   of   the   parties   have<\/p>\n
disputed   that   items   1   and   2   belonged   in   jenm   to   Velluva   Puthiyaveettil<\/p>\n
tarwad and the said items were enjoyed as tavazhi properties prior to the<\/p>\n
alleged   oral   entrustment   in   favour   of   the   1st  defendant.         It   is   also   not<\/p>\n
disputed   that   the   1st  defendant   was   the   Karanavan   of   the   tavazhi   from<\/p>\n
1968 and that  he was the eldest male member.    It has also come out in<\/p>\n
evidence   that   the   executant   of   Ext.B1   kuzhikanam   pattadaram     late<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
Krishnan Nambiar   is the father-in-law of the 1st  defendant.   The case set<\/p>\n
up  by the1st   defendant  is that he  obtained  the  oral lease in  March 1952<\/p>\n
from   his   father-in-law   and   that   his   father-in-law   executed   Ext.B1<\/p>\n
kuzhikanam   pattadaram   in   his   favour,   that   he   executed   Ext.B2   marupat<\/p>\n
and   subsequently     obtained   Ext.B5   purchase   certificate   on   the   basis   of<\/p>\n
Ext.B1   kuzhikanam   pattadaram.     According   to   the   respondents\/plaintiffs<\/p>\n
the oral lease of 1952 set up by the 1st defendant is incorrect, that such a<\/p>\n
claim is set up to defeat the legitimate right of the plaintiffs and other co-<\/p>\n
owners   of   the   property   and   that   Ext.B1   and   B2   documents   are   got<\/p>\n
fraudulently executed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        15.      The  question   raised before   the  court   below  and  now  before<\/p>\n
us is whether the lease given by the then Karanavan under the alleged oral<\/p>\n
lease of 1952 and Ext.B1 are valid or not valid.   According to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   plaintiffs   the   Karanavan   has   no   right   to   alienate   the<\/p>\n
property without the consent of the majority of the major members of the<\/p>\n
tarwad   and   that   there   is   a   prohibition   under   sec.33(1)   of   the   Madras<\/p>\n
Marumakkathayam Act (22 of 1930) against the alienation of the property<\/p>\n
by way of sale, mortgage or lease.   According to the learned counsel, the<\/p>\n
lease  of   tarwad  property   by  the   Karanavan   shall   not   be   valid   unless   the<\/p>\n
written   consent   of   the   majority   of   the   major   members   of   the   tarwad   has<\/p>\n
been obtained to the lease.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n        16.     Sec.33   of   the   said   Act   deals   with     alienation   of   immovable\n\n\nAS 576\/1992                              Page numbers\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
property by a Karanavan of a tarwad.  The question to be decided is as to<\/p>\n
whether the Karanavan has got a right to lease the tarwad property in 1952<\/p>\n
without obtaining the written consent of the majority of the major members<\/p>\n
of the tarwad.     According to the 1st  defendant, he got oral lease in 1952<\/p>\n
and  on 3.8.1960  Ext.B1 registered lease deed was executed by the then<\/p>\n
Karanavan.       There   is   no   evidence   forthcoming     as   to   the   period   of   the<\/p>\n
lease originally granted and as to whether it exceeds 12 years or   not.   In<\/p>\n
the light of Ext.B1 lease deed executed after 8 years, it can be presumed<\/p>\n
that originally the lease was for a period not exceeding 12 years.   Under<\/p>\n
sub-sec.(2) of sec.33 of the Act, as it stood at the time of the oral lease of<\/p>\n
1952, no lease of any immovable property of a tarwad shall be valid unless<\/p>\n
it is executed by the Karanavan and where the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929<\/p>\n
confers fixity of  tenure  on the lessee, unless     the written consent of  the<\/p>\n
major members of the tarwad has been obtained to the lease,  The alleged<\/p>\n
oral lease of  1952  will confer fixity of  tenure under  the Malabar Tenancy<\/p>\n
Act to a verumpattomdar provided the applicant should establish the oral<\/p>\n
lease of 1952.   Sub-sec.(2) of sec.33(2) prohibits grant of any such lease<\/p>\n
which confers fixity of tenure on the lessee unless the alleged lease was<\/p>\n
given with the written consent of the major members of the tarwad.<\/p>\n
        17.     Lease   of   tavazhi   property   by  a   Karanavan   in   favour   of   some<\/p>\n
members of the family in the year 1951 without  the consent of the major<\/p>\n
members of the tavazhi was considered by a Division Bench of this Court<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
in Kohnan Gopalan and others v. Padmini and others – ILR [1996 (3)] 770.<\/p>\n
That  was a       case of lease executed on 29.1.1951 by the Karanavan in<\/p>\n
favour of some members of the tavazhi.  Written consent of the majority of<\/p>\n
the members of the tavazhi was not obtained.   The period of lease was for<\/p>\n
12 years.   The court held that in view of sub-sec.(2) of sec.33 of the Act,<\/p>\n
as   amended   in   the   year   1951,   the   consent   of   major   members   of   the<\/p>\n
tavazhi     or   tarwad     was   required   in   view   of   the   fact   that   the   tenant<\/p>\n
thereunder would have been entitled to fixity of tenure under the Malabar<\/p>\n
Tenancy Act.  The Division Bench held that any such lease executed after<\/p>\n
27th July 1950 was hit by the amended sec.33(2) of the Act.<\/p>\n
        18.   The appellants have no case that the oral entrustment as well<\/p>\n
as the entrustment under Exts.B1 and B2 documents are with the written<\/p>\n
consent of the majority of the major members of the tarwad.  As DW.1 the<\/p>\n
1st  defendant   deposed   that   his   father-in-law,   who   was   the   Karanavan   at<\/p>\n
that time, granted him oral lease in 1952 and executed  Ext.B1 registered<\/p>\n
lease in 1960.  He has no case that the original entrustment or subsequent<\/p>\n
Ext.B1   entrustment     was   with   the   consent   of   the   majority   of   the   major<\/p>\n
members of the tarwad.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        19.  Apart from the statutory bar as mentioned above under sec.33<\/p>\n
(2) of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, the further question is whether<\/p>\n
there is an entrustment by way of lease as alleged by the 1st defendant in<\/p>\n
his favour by the then Karanavan in the year 1952.  There is no evidence<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                                 Page numbers<\/p>\n
apart   from   the   interested   oral   testimony  of   the  1st  defendant   as  DW.1   to<\/p>\n
show that items 1 and 2 was entrusted to him by the then Karanavan.  As<\/p>\n
DW.1,   the1st   defendant   had   deposed   that   he   had   paid   purappad   to   the<\/p>\n
then Karanavan and obtained receipts in pursuance to the lease of 1951.<\/p>\n
He had also deposed that from 1960 to 1970 he had obtained receipts  for<\/p>\n
the payment of purappad.   But the 1st  defendant failed to produce even a<\/p>\n
single receipt during the period 1952 to 1960 and from 1960 to 1970.  The<\/p>\n
non-production of rent  receipts or any other documents or circumstances<\/p>\n
evidencing the transaction also leads to the conclusion that the oral lease<\/p>\n
set up by the 1st defendant who is the son-in-law of the then Karanavan is<\/p>\n
not   correct.     Even   after   Ext.B1   lease   deed   came   into   existence,   the   1st<\/p>\n
defendant is not in a position to produce even a single receipt evidencing<\/p>\n
payment of purappad.   Even assuming that  he got the property on lease<\/p>\n
under Ext.B1 lease deed, the said lease is also not a valid lease in view of<\/p>\n
sec.33(2) as it stood  in 1960.   The amendment was brought about in the<\/p>\n
year   1952   which   provided   that   no   lease   at   all   could   be   granted   by   a<\/p>\n
Karanavan without  the written consent  of the majority of  the members of<\/p>\n
the tarwad.  Sec.33(1) as amended by Act 26\/1958 reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
        “33.         xx                   xx                     xx                 xx<\/p>\n
        (1) No sale or mortgage of any immovable property of a tarwad and<\/p>\n
        no lease of any such property shall be valid, unless it is executed by<\/p>\n
        the   Karanavan   for   consideration,   for   tarwad   necessity   or   benefit,<\/p>\n
        and with the written consent of the majority of the major members of<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                              Page numbers<\/p>\n
        the tarwad.”\n<\/p>\n
For a lease to be held valid under the said provision, the transaction shall<\/p>\n
be   supported   by   consideration,   tarwad   necessity   or   benefit   and   shall   be<\/p>\n
executed with the written consent of the majority of the major members of<\/p>\n
the tarwad.   Since there is no evidence worthwhile to prove a valid lease<\/p>\n
which   satisfies   the   requirements   under   sec.33(1)   of   the   Madras<\/p>\n
Marumakkathayam   Act   as   amended   by   Act   26\/1958,   the   contention   that<\/p>\n
he  got absolute  right over the property by virtue of  Exts.B1  to B5  cannot<\/p>\n
stand.     There   is   nothing   wrong   in   the   Karanavan   executing     a   lease   in<\/p>\n
favour   of   any   member   of   the   tarwad   provided   such   transaction   shall<\/p>\n
conform   to   the   requirements   of   the   statute   then   in   force.     The   simple<\/p>\n
reason that the member happened to be the son-in-law of the Karanavan<\/p>\n
is not a factor to be taken note of for invalidating the lease.   Any member<\/p>\n
of the tarwad, under a valid lease,   can enjoy the property as a lessee if<\/p>\n
the family circumstances warrant grant of such lease for the best interest<\/p>\n
of the tarwad.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        20.      The  learned  counsel  for  the  plaintiffs  also  challenged  Ext.B3<\/p>\n
order   in   SM   30\/1983   and   Ext.B5   purchase   certificate   issued   pursuant<\/p>\n
thereto.       In   the   proceedings   before   the   Land   Tribunal   the   1st  defendant<\/p>\n
impleaded   the   2nd  defendant   in   the   suit   as   the   opposite   party.     The   2nd<\/p>\n
defendant is a member of the tarwad and he has no authority to represent<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                            Page numbers<\/p>\n
the   remaining   tavazhi   members.     The   proper   party   before   the   Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal     should   have   been   the   tavazhi.     There   is   no   case   for   the1st<\/p>\n
defendant   that   the   tavazhi   members   had   ever   taken   any   decision<\/p>\n
authorising   the   2nd  defendant   to   represent   the   tavazhi   before   the   Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal.     Ext.B3   order   and   Ext.B5   purchase   certificate   are   obtained<\/p>\n
behind the back of the tavazhi and its members and have no binding force<\/p>\n
on   the   tavazhi   or   its   members.     In   such   circumstances   the   contention<\/p>\n
raised by the plaintiffs that Exts.B3 to B5 were fraudulently got executed in<\/p>\n
collusion   with   the   2nd  defendant   assumes   importance.         The   very  same<\/p>\n
contention   as   against   Exts.B1   and   B2   also   had   merit   in   the   facts   and<\/p>\n
circumstances proved.   Since Exts.B1 to B5 documents are not legal and<\/p>\n
valid and are not binding on the plaintiffs or other members of the family<\/p>\n
and therefore in no way it disqualifies the plaintiffs and other members of<\/p>\n
the tavazhi from claiming partition of the suit properties.<\/p>\n
        21.  Defendants Nos.1 and 12 in their written statement had further<\/p>\n
pleaded   that   item   No.3   has   lost   its   character   as   tavazhi   property.<\/p>\n
According to them, as per Ext.A1 will, the said property has been given on<\/p>\n
leasehold   right   to   deceased   Parvathi   Amma   and   her   children   alone   and<\/p>\n
this was confirmed by document No.320\/1929 which would also show that<\/p>\n
the  lease was in  favour of  the specified  members  and  could  not   devolve<\/p>\n
upon any of the descendants.  On this ground the defendants are entitled<\/p>\n
to one share in item  No.3.    On the basis of the contention raised   in the<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                               Page numbers<\/p>\n
appeal, document No.320\/1929 was also examined by us and the merit of<\/p>\n
the contention on that basis also has to fail due to the following reasons:-<\/p>\n
        Going by the recitals in Ext.A1 and the document No.320\/1929, item<\/p>\n
No.3   property   was  taken   on   lease  by   Sri  Kannan   Nambiar   on   1.12.1905<\/p>\n
from   the   jenmies.       Kannan   Nambiar   is   none   other   than   the   husband   of<\/p>\n
Parvathi   Amma   and   father   of   the   four   children   named   in   the   registered<\/p>\n
lease deed No.320\/1929.    Again Sri Kannan Nambiar took renewal of the<\/p>\n
said property on 28.1.1914.  While so, Sri Kannan Nambiar by Ext.A2  will<\/p>\n
bequeathed   item   No.3   and   other   properties   to   Parvathi   Amma   and   her<\/p>\n
children.     In   1929   Sri   Kannan   Nambiar   passed   away.       After   his   death<\/p>\n
document   No.320\/1929,   which   is   a   kuzhikanom   pattadaram,     was<\/p>\n
executed by the jenmi Karanavan in favour of Parvathi Amma and her four<\/p>\n
children.   The lease in favour of the husband of Ammukutty Amma in the<\/p>\n
year 1905 and subsequent renewal of 1914   and the will dated 31.8.1924<\/p>\n
(Ext.A2)   are   mentioned   in   document   No.320\/1929.     The   jenmi   also<\/p>\n
admitted   in   the   said   document   that   pursuant   to   the   will   dated   31.8.1924<\/p>\n
(Ext.A2),   Parvathi   Amma   and   her   children   are   enjoying   the   property   as<\/p>\n
lessees.     Going by the  recitals  in  document   No.320\/1929  it is clear that<\/p>\n
this   document   is   executed   in   continuation   of   the   earlier   documents   and<\/p>\n
can   only   be   treated   as   a   renewal   of   the   lease   in   favour   of   the   tavazhi<\/p>\n
consisting of Parvathi Amma and her descendants.  The acquirers of lease<\/p>\n
constitute a natural group and form  a tavazhi by themselves.   There  can<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                              Page numbers<\/p>\n
hardly   be   any   doubt   that   the   acquisition   should   be   presumed   to   be   on<\/p>\n
behalf  of  the  tavazhi.     It  has been held in a number of  decisions  of  this<\/p>\n
court  that gift  or acquisition made in favour of a marumakkathayi woman<\/p>\n
and  her children, a natural presumption would arise that the acquisition is<\/p>\n
for   the   benefit   of   the   tavazhi.       Except   producing   this   document,   no<\/p>\n
evidence was let in on the side of the appellants to prove that item  No.3<\/p>\n
property was given on leasehold right to Parvathi Amma and her children<\/p>\n
alone,   that   the   said   lease   was   in   favour   of   the   specified   members   and<\/p>\n
therefore   could   not   devolve   upon   any   of   the   descendants.       In   fact,<\/p>\n
defendants Nos.1   and 12 admitted in their written statement that items 3<\/p>\n
to 5 properties are partible and that they have no objection in partitioning<\/p>\n
the   said   items.     While   giving   evidence   as   DW.1   also   the   1st  defendant<\/p>\n
categorically admitted that he has no objection in partitioning items 3 to 5<\/p>\n
as   tavazhi   properties.     Hence   the   contention   of   the   appellants   that   the<\/p>\n
claim made by the plaintiffs in plaint item No.3 has to be characterised as<\/p>\n
tavazhi   property   tracing   its   origin   to   Ext.A2   will   executed   by   Kannan<\/p>\n
Nambiar cannot be accepted, stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        22.   The trial court rejected the contention of the plaintiffs that item<\/p>\n
No.6 was purchased with the income from item Nos.3 to 5 and the fund left<\/p>\n
by deceased Kannan Nambiar and therefore item No.6 is also liable to be<\/p>\n
partitioned among the members of the tavazhi of Parvathi Amma.  The trial<\/p>\n
court   upheld   the   contention   of   defendants   4   and   5   that   the   said   item   of<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                            Page numbers<\/p>\n
property is liable to be partitioned among defendants 1 and 4 to 8 and the<\/p>\n
children of Parvathi Amma.  The trial court after accepting the contentions<\/p>\n
of defendants 4 and 5 held that   item No.6 be partitioned   into four equal<\/p>\n
shares by metes and bounds of which the 1st  defendant   is entitled to get<\/p>\n
one such share, defendants 4 and 5 together entitled to one such share as<\/p>\n
the legal representatives of Madhavan Nambiar, defendants 6 to 8 will be<\/p>\n
entitled   to   get   one   such   share   as   the   legal   representatives   of<\/p>\n
Govindankutty and plaintiffs 1, 7, 8, 12, 15 and 18 and defendants 2 and 3<\/p>\n
together   entitled   to   get   one   share   as   the   legal   representatives   of<\/p>\n
Ammukutty Amma.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        23.  The plaintiffs and defendant No.3 who are respondents 1 to 18<\/p>\n
and   21   in   the   appeal   filed   cross-objection   challenging   the   said   finding.<\/p>\n
According to the cross-objectors, the finding that item No.6 is liable to be<\/p>\n
partitioned   only   among   defendants   1   and   4   to   8   and   the   legal<\/p>\n
representatives of Parvathi Amma is unsustainable.  They have contended<\/p>\n
before  us that item  No.6  was purchased  with the funds  left  by deceased<\/p>\n
Kannan   Nambiar   and   retained   with   Parvathi   Amma   and   also   with   the<\/p>\n
income  from  item  Nos.3  to  5 possessed  by Parvathi  Amma.       Item   No.6<\/p>\n
was purchased   by  Parvathi  Amma   and   her   children   by  Ext.A3   document<\/p>\n
dated   9.11.1942.       Under   what   circumstances   and   in   what   manner   the<\/p>\n
consideration   for   Ext.A3   was   raised   is   not   known.     There   is   no   direct<\/p>\n
evidence  to prove  that  item  No.6  was purchased  out  of  the  income from<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                              Page numbers<\/p>\n
item Nos.3 to 5 or with any fund left by deceased Kannan Nambiar.   One<\/p>\n
thing   is   very   clear   that   the   acquisition   is   made   in   favour   of   a<\/p>\n
marumakkathayi woman and her children who constitutes a natural group.<\/p>\n
It is also borne out from evidence that Parvathi Amma was in possession<\/p>\n
and enjoyment of properties bequeathed to the tavazhi under   Ext.A2 will<\/p>\n
dated 31.8.1924 by her husband.  Her husband died in the year 1929 and<\/p>\n
in 1929 she came into possession of the properties covered by Ext.A2 will.<\/p>\n
While   she   was   in   management   of   the   said   properties,   item   No.6   was<\/p>\n
acquired   on   9.11.1942   by   Ext.A3   assignment   deed.     There   is   also   no<\/p>\n
evidence   that   Parvathi   Amma   had   her  own  funds   other   than   the   income<\/p>\n
from   the   tarwad   properties.     It   has   also   come   out   in   evidence   that   the<\/p>\n
tarwad   was   receiving   purappad   from   several   tenants.     The   evidence   on<\/p>\n
hand will go to show that the above mentioned amounts at her hands was<\/p>\n
the   income     she   received   from   the   tarwad   properties   and   there   is   every<\/p>\n
possibility that those amounts have been utilised for the acquisition of item<\/p>\n
No.6 property, especially when the acquisition was for a small  amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.380\/-.   Such a possibility cannot be ruled out.  At the same time, since<\/p>\n
positive evidence is lacking regarding the consideration  paid for item No.6<\/p>\n
in Ext.A3 assignment deed, we concur with the reasons stated by the trial<\/p>\n
court that  there is no evidence to show that the income from item Nos.3 to<\/p>\n
5 and the fund left by deceased Kannan Nambiar was utilized for purchase<\/p>\n
of item No.6.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                               Page numbers<\/p>\n
        24.  At the same time, a natural presumption would arise when a gift<\/p>\n
or acquisition is made in favour of  a marumakkathayi woman and  all her<\/p>\n
children that the acquisition is for the benefit of the tavazhi.   The principle<\/p>\n
of   law   in   such   circumstances   is   that   once   it   is   found   that   the   acquirers<\/p>\n
constitute  a natural  group   and  form  a  thavazhi  by  themselves,   there   can<\/p>\n
hardly   be   any   doubt   that   the   acquisition   should   be   presumed   to   be   on<\/p>\n
behalf   of   the   thavazhi.     There   is   no   evidence   in   this   case   to   rebut   the<\/p>\n
presumption.  There cannot be any dispute that an acquisition by the joint<\/p>\n
exertion of persons constituting a thavazhi will enure to the benefit of the<\/p>\n
thavazhi   and   the   property   so   acquired   is   thavazhi   property.     We   find<\/p>\n
support for the above said principle from the decision reported in Kayakkal<\/p>\n
Lakshmi and others v. Kayakkal Anandan and others<\/a> – ILR 1982 (2) Ker.<\/p>\n
377 wherein the same position was examined and held so.<\/p>\n
                 25.     The   appellants   also   contended   that   the   right   of   the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs   over   items   Nos.1   and   2   is   lost   by   adverse   possession   and<\/p>\n
limitation.   It is well settled that if a co-owner in possession held adversely<\/p>\n
to   other   co-owners   openly   and   for   a   substantially   long   period   of   time,<\/p>\n
ouster   of   other   co-owners   may   be   inferred.         A   co-owner   who   is   in<\/p>\n
possession   is   to   prove   adverse   possession   by   positive   evidence.<\/p>\n
Mutation   of   name   in   the   revenue   records   or   effecting   repairs   or   even<\/p>\n
building   a   house   cannot   constitute   ouster.     There   must   be   evidence   of<\/p>\n
open   assertion   of   hostile   title     coupled   with   exclusive   possession   and<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                                        Page numbers<\/p>\n
enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of  others may justify a claim<\/p>\n
for adverse possession.   In this case there is no such evidence adduced<\/p>\n
by   the   appellants   before   the   court   below.     Under   the   circumstances   the<\/p>\n
finding of the court below that the title of the plaintiffs over items Nos.1 and<\/p>\n
2 is not lost by adverse possession and limitation requires no interference<\/p>\n
and therefore confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          26.       In   the   circumstances   the   cross-objection   filed   by   the   cross-<\/p>\n
objectors   is     allowed   and   we   hold   that   item   No.6   in   the   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property also is to be partitioned along with item Nos.3 to 5 into 23 equal<\/p>\n
shares by metes and bounds of which the plaintiffs together will be entitled<\/p>\n
to  get  18\/23   such   shares,   defendants  1  to   3 will   be  entitled   to  one  such<\/p>\n
share each, defendants 4 and 5 together will be entitled to one such share<\/p>\n
and defendants 6 to 8 together will be entitled to get one such share.<\/p>\n
          In the result, A.S.No.576 of 1992 is dismissed.  The cross-objection<\/p>\n
filed by the cross-objectors stands allowed and the judgment  and decree<\/p>\n
passed by the court below stand modified as stated above.    No order as<\/p>\n
to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                                                HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE<\/p>\n
mt\/-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
AS 576\/1992                                   Page numbers\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            C.R.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                KURIAN JOSEPH &\n\n                                                               HARUN-UL-RASHID,  JJ.\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                                                          ———————————————-<\/p>\n
                                                                       A.S.  No.576\/1992 and<\/p>\n
                                                                       Cross-objections<\/p>\n
                                                                             JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                                               ———————————————-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                                                             24.10.2007<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court A.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS No. 576 of 1992(A) 1. A.M.PADMINI AMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated […]<\/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-189330","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007 - 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\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-10-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-10T10:23:15+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=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-10T10:23:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":5865,\"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\\\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007\",\"name\":\"A.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-10T10:23:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"A.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007 - 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\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-10T10:23:15+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":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-10T10:23:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007"},"wordCount":5865,"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\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007","name":"A.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-10T10:23:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-m-padmini-amma-vs-vijayalakshmi-amma-on-24-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.M.Padmini Amma vs Vijayalakshmi Amma on 24 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/189330","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=189330"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189330\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}