Kerala High Court
* Prabhakaran vs * 1. Suseela Kumaran on 5 September, 2013
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair, A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/29TH SRAVANA, 1935
RFA.No. 146 of 2007 ( )
---------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 129/2003 of PRL.SUB COURT,
THRISSUR.
.........
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
-----------------------------------
* PRABHAKARAN, AGED 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RATNAPRABHA, AISWARAYA LANE, PATTURAIKKAL
THRISSUR VILLAGE & TALUK. (DIED)
*ADDL.A2 TO A6 IMPLEADED
2. RATNAM PRABHAKARAN W/O.LATE PRABHAKARAN,
RATNAPRABHA, AISWARAYA LA NE, PATTURAIKKAL,
TRICHUR DISTRICT.
3. RAJI, D/O.LATE PRABHAKARAN,RATNAPRABHA,
AISWARAYA LANE,
PATTURAIKKAL, TRICHUR DISTRICT.
4. RAJESH, S/O.LATE PRABHAKARAN, RATNAPRABHA,
AISWARAYA LANE, PATTURAIKKAL, TRICHUR DISTRICT.
5. SIJI, D/O.LATE PRABHAKARAN, RATNAPRABHA,
AISWARAYA LANE, PATTURAIKKAL, TRICHUR DISTRICT.
6. VIJI, D/O.LATE PRABHAKARAN, RATNAPRABHA,
AISWARAYA LANE, PATTURAIKKAL,
TRICHUR DISTRICT.
*THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED
AS ADDL. APPELLANTS 2 TO 6 VIDE ORDER DTD. 22.6.2011 IN IA. 2688/2010.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN
SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY
R.F.A.NO.146/2007
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS:
--------------------------------------------------
* 1. SUSEELA KUMARAN, AGED 64 YEARS,
W/O. PUTHENPURAIKKAL KUMARAN, RESIDING AT,RAM NIVAS
MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR VILLAGE AND, TALUK. (DIED)
** 2. SUNIL RAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. SUSEELA KUMARAN, -DO- -DO- (DIED)
3. NIMAL, AGED ABOUT 38,
-DO- -DO-
4. SUVARNA PRASANNAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YRS,
D/O. SUSEELA KUMARAN AND W/O. RAYINIKKAL PRASANNAN
ARISTO ROAD, MISSION QUARTERS, TRICHUR-5.
5. GEETHA SUDHEER, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
D/O. SUSEELA KUMARAN, AND W/O. SUDHEER
METRO PLAZA BUILDING, VTH FLOOR, MARKET ROAD
COCHIN-14.
6. LALITHA APPUNNI, AGED ABOUT 54,
W/O. PERINNATHARA VEETTIL APPUNNI, P.O.PERINJANAM
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
* IT IS RECORDED THAT 1ST RESPONDENT DIED AND (DIED DURING THE
PENDENCY OF THE SUIT) AND R3 TO R5 ALREADY IN THE PARTY ARRAY
ARE HER LEGAL HEIRS, VIDE MEMO DATED 05/09/2013 AS PER ORDER
DATED 10/09/2013.
** IT IS RECORDED THAT THE 2ND RESPONDENT DIED AND HIS LEGAL HEIRS
ARE THE DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT AND R3 TO R5 WHO ARE ALREADY
IN PARTY ARRAY, VIDE ORDER DATED 10/09/2013 IN MEMO
DATED 05/09/2013 (C.F.5138/2013).
R1,4 & 5 BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN
R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH
R6 BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR
SRI.C.S.DIAS
SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20-08-2013, ALONG WITH CO. NO.40/2007 & CO.53/2008 THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
R.F.A.No.146/2007 &
Cross Objection Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J.
This appeal and cross objections arise from the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.129/2003 of the Sub Court, Thrissur. R.F.A.No.146/2007 was filed by the appellant-plaintiff who died during the pendency of the appeal and additional appellants 2 to 6 have been impleaded as per order dated 22/06/2011 in I.A.No.2688/2010. Cross Objection No.40/2007 is filed by respondents-defendants 1, 4 and 5 and Cross Objection No.53/2008 is filed by respondent-defendant No.6.
2. The suit is one for partition and the properties have been scheduled as 'A' & 'B'. 'A' schedule is having an extent of 231/2 cents which stood equally in the name of deceased Raman as well as Kumaran, his son, who is the deceased husband of the first defendant. 'B' schedule contains 731/2 cents of property in the name of deceased Raman. The court below dismissed the suit mainly on the basis of findings on issue R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 2:- regarding non-joinder of necessary parties. But, certain findings have been rendered in favour of the plaintiff also which have led to the filing of the cross objections by some of the defendants.
3. The plaintiff's case is that deceased Raman had married Smt.Lakshmi, mother of the plaintiff. After the marriage between the mother of the plaintiff and Raman, he went to Ceylon and later he married the mother of Kumaran; and after he returned from Ceylon, according to the plaintiff, the deceased Raman took the plaintiff as well as his mother Lakshmi and they were residing together; and after about 12 years, he married another lady Smt.Karthiyani whose daughter is the sixth defendant in the suit. After some years, Raman brought defendants 2 to 5 as well as deceased Kumaran and all of them were residing together. Plaintiff was considered as a son by late Shri Raman.
4. The plaintiff, in the plaint averred that after Raman returned from Ceylon, he happened to purchase properties in his name, in the name of the plaintiff and in the name of the plaintiff's mother Lakshmi and in the R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 3:- name of Kumaran, Karthiyani and Lalitha who is the sixth defendant; and deceased Raman was holding the properties in his possession and he went back to Ceylon in 1975 and died there in 1977. After the death of Shri Raman, the properties which stood in his name were being enjoyed by Kumaran and Karthiyani. The mother of the plaintiff Smt.Lakshmi died in 1978. Even though the properties were sought to be partitioned then, it was informed that it can be done after the death of Karthiyani. She died in the year 2001. Contending that the defendants are not yielding to the demands of the plaintiff, the suit has been filed.
5. Defendants 5 and 6 have filed separate written statements. The first defendant mainly contended that the deceased Raman had not married the plaintiff's mother and the plaintiff was never recognised as his son and they have not resided together also. It is contended that the plaintiff has not disclosed the name of his father and really he is the son of one Mukeni Mama. The first defendant also disputed the plea of the plaintiff that Raman had purchased certain items of properties in the name R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 4:- of the plaintiff and his mother. The first defendant, therefore, disputes the claim of the plaintiff for partition. Raman had executed a will on 23/08/1975 by which Kumaran is the sole heir of the property, after his death. The other defendants have also raised contentions in more or less in the same lines. Before the trial court six issues have been raised and additional issues have been raised as Nos.7 and 8. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 3 have been examined and Exts.A1 to A14 have been marked. On the side of the defendants DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B3 and B5 to B13 were marked. Ext.B4 is the will which was not marked as no evidence was adduced.
6. The trial court in para.8 considered one of the contentions raised by the sixth defendant that Raman is having four children in Ceylon whose names have been given in the written statement. The sixth defendant has further contended that the suit is not maintainable for non- joinder of necessary parties. The court below has accepted the said contention and held that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties. One of R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 5:- the findings in that context is that non-joinder of the plaintiff's brother also as a party to the suit itself is a fatal defect.
7. As far as the claim for partition is concerned, in respect of issue No.4, the finding is that there had been continuous cohabitation as far as the deceased Raman and Lakshmi are concerned. The court relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and even the evidence of DW1 and recitals from Ext.A8 and found in favour of the presumption that Lakshmi is the wife of Raman. Reliance is also placed on Ext.B3 document.
8. We heard learned counsel Shri T.M.Chandran for the appellants, Shri Sudhi Vasudevan for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 and Shri P.Gopakumaran Nair for the sixth respondent. Shri T.M.Chandran submitted that the finding on issue No.1 cannot be supported by any reason. It is submitted that the sixth respondent in the written statement has only raised a plea that the deceased Raman had other legal heirs in Ceylon and none of the details have been given, except their names. We find from a perusal of the written statement of the sixth defendant in para.1 R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 6:- itself that, the plea is that one Nicholas @ Vasu, Antony @ Balan, Reetha @ Seetha, Lilly @ Leela Jayasurya are necessary parties to the suit. Of course, they have been described as children of deceased Raman but no other details regarding their whereabouts have been stated therein.
9. With regard to the non impleadment of the alleged brother of the plaintiff, the court below relied upon the portions of the cross- examination of the plaintiff itself. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the same has been clarified in the re-examination where he has answered that except the plaintiff no other children are there.
10. As rightly pointed out by Shri T.M.Chandran, the details of the children who are in Ceylon have not been given by the sixth respondent in the written statement which are necessary for impleading them. The deceased plaintiff could not have made any enquiry without those details. Shri P.Gopakumaran Nair learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that as it was specifically mentioned in the written statement that those people are the children of deceased Raman, the plaintiff was bound R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 7:- to inquire about them, find out their address and to implead them. In fact, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Laxmishankar Harishankar Bhatt v. Yashram Vasta [AIR 1993 SC 1587], the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that only if the particular details of persons are made available, the plaintiff can be compelled to bring them in the record. According to us, the learned counsel is well justified in making the said submissions. The sixth respondent in the written statement raised the plea that the deceased Raman had other legal heirs in Ceylon but no details of the persons have been given, except their names. As far as the brother of the plaintiff is concerned, the same has been clarified in the re- examination. Therefore, we reverse the finding made by the court below that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
11. Then the next question is whether the finding rendered by the court below on issue No.4 is correct which is challenged in the cross- objection.
R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 8:-
12. We heard learned counsel appearing for the parties in extenso.
13. As far as the said finding is concerned, a reference to para.11 onwards will show that, oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2, some portions of the cross-examination of DW1 and two documents, Exts.A8 and B3 have been relied upon.
14. Learned counsel Shri Sudhi Vasudevan appearing for respondents 1, 4 and 5 and, learned counsel Shri P.Gopakumaran Nair appearing for the sixth respondent submitted that the important legal issues have not been considered by the court below. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff is not the son of Raman through Lakshmi. He was born in the wedlock of Lakshmi with Mukeni Mama. As far as the marriage between Lakshmi and Raman, at the first instance, which is the plea by the plaintiff or the marriage between them after Raman came back from Ceylon, there is no evidence. In between, it can be seen that Mukeni Mama had married Lakshmi. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that no R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 9:- presumption can be drawn about the marital status of Lakshmi with Raman as there was a subsisting marriage between Mukeni mama and Lakshmi. There is no evidence to show the alleged date of marriage or death of Mukeni Mama. Apart from the same, the mother of deceased Kumaran was also married to late Shri Raman. There is no legal evidence on the part of the plaintiff in respect of these marriages and whatever have been attempted to be adduced are only bare assertions that Lakshmi was being treated as wife of late Shri Raman. It is submitted that evidence of PW2 will also not support the case. These are answered by Shri T.M.Chandran learned counsel for the appellants that going by the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiff has clearly stated that Lakshmi was initially married to Raman before he went to Ceylon and after he came back, they married again and after 12 years, he married Karthiyani. Coupled to the same, evidence of PW1 is there and; PW2 also supports that Lakshmi has been residing in the house of Raman. Learned counsel by inviting our attention to the R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 10:- cross-examination of DW1 also submitted that DW1 has also stated that she has seen Lakshmi in the house of Raman.
15. Both sides have relied upon various Judgments of the Apex Court. Shri Sudhi Vasudevan learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 relied upon the Judgment in Bharatha Matha and another v. R.Vijaya Renganathan & others [AIR 2010 SC 2685] in support of his contentions that no presumption can be drawn about live-in-relationship between Lakshmi and Raman. Lakshmi was married to Mukeni Mama and, therefore, unless and until cogent evidence is there that the said relationship did not subsist or had ended in any legally possible manner, the plea of cohabitation could not have been supported. Raman was married to Kumaran's mother in Ceylon. Shri T.M.Chandran learned counsel for the appellants referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh and others v. Rajini Kant and Another [AIR 2010 SC 2933].
R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 11:-
16. As far as the evidence in this respect is concerned, PW1 in the chief affidavit reiterated his case pleaded in the plaint. It is stated that Lakshmi died in 1978. There is cross-examination of PW1 by the defendants. Even though PW1 has stated that actually there was a marriage between Lakshmi and Raman, we find that there is no legal evidence to prove the alleged marriage, i.e. on the first occasion between Raman and Lakshmi before he went to Ceylon and any evidence of marriage between them after he came back from Ceylon. Admittedly, Kumaran's mother was married to Raman in Ceylon and the plaintiff has also recognised Kumaran and defendants 2 to 5 as his legal heirs in that wedlock. Therefore, to conceive a legal relationship between Lakshmi and Raman in the legally possible way, there should be positive evidence for the same.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants wanted us to examine the same in the light of Exts.A8 and B3 two documents which have been executed in the years 1171 Malayalam Era (Ext.B3) as well as in the year R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 12:- 1957 (Ext.A8). Going by Ext.A8, learned counsel submits that Lakshmi has been described as the first wife of deceased Puthanpurakkal Raman and it is further pointed out that the document will show that Raman had parted away 3,000/- for purchasing the property in favour of Lakshmi and the deceased plaintiff herein. Ext.B3 is a partition deed executed in the family of Lakshmi. The parties mentioned are Kandukutty, S/o.Mama, Lakshmi wife of Mama and the plaintiff. Therein, there is a recital about the father of the deceased plaintiff herein as Mukeni Mama. Evidently, Ext.B3 document will only show the fact that Mukeni Mama was not alive on that date but that does not advance the case of the plaintiff that Lakshmi had married deceased Raman after the death of Mukeni Mama. As far as Ext.B3 is concerned, deceased Raman was not a party in it. But unless and until Raman recognised her status as a wife or the like, and there is any document evidencing the same, we will not be justified in holding that deceased Lakshmi was treated as wife itself by deceased Raman. Of course, the respondents had a case that Lakshmi was a maid servant in R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 13:- the family. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri T.M.Chandran submitted that the fact that she was staying in Raman's house will go in long way to support the plea of cohabitation. Of course, the document Ext.A7 by which the deceased Raman purchased certain properties is also relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants to show that the presence of Raman on the same day in the Sub Registrar Officer is evident as Ext.A7 as well as Ext.A8 are of the same date. There is no other evidence to show that deceased Raman was actually present at the time when Ext.A8 was executed.
18. What we find from the way in which the plaintiff has adduced evidence is that he could not adduce any cogent evidence, in support of the first marriage between Lakshmi and Raman, when his father-Mukeni Mama married Lakshmi, when Mukeni Mama died and, as on the date of the alleged marriage between Lakshmi and deceased Raman, whether Kumaran's mother was also alive. This Court will not be justified in granting a decree in favour of the appellants based on the flimsy evidence R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 14:- of the plaintiff. Of course, DW1 has stated that she has occasion to see Lakshmi in the house of deceased Raman. But in the light of the fact that deceased Raman had married deceased Kumaran's mother and; the plaintiff's mother Lakshmi had also another marriage with Mukeni Mama; unless positive evidence is there and as the plaintiff failed in proving that there is no legal inhibition in recognising the rights of his mother in the plausible manner, we cannot presume cohabitation. Of course, Shri A.Sudhi Vasudevan and Shri P.Gopakumaran Nair placed reliance on the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act to contend that another marriage, when the relationship between the married woman and man is subsisting, cannot get any validity. Shri T.M.Chandran tried to emphasise that all these would have happened before the coming into the force of the Hindu Marriage Act. For all these matters we have no legal evidence before us as regards the dates of marriage as well as ceremonies, if any, conducted as per the Hindu custom. We find that the court below, based on the items of evidence, was of the view that there was a strong presumption in favour R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 15:- of the plaintiff that there is continued cohabitation to term it as a legal marriage between the parties. But, in the light of the other marital relationships Lakshmi and Raman had, as we have already observed, we cannot presume the same.
19. The Judgment relied upon by Shri A.Sudhi Vasudevan in Bharatha Matha's case [AIR 2010 SC 2685], in para.22, by relying upon two earlier Judgments of the S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal & another [JT 2010 (4) SC 478] and Latha Singh v. State of U.P & Another [AIR 2006 SC 2522] held that live-in-relationship is permissible only in unmarried major persons of heterogeneous sex. It was observed in the particular facts of that case that, in case one of the said persons is married, man may be guilty of offence of adultery and it would amount to an offence under Section 497 IPC. Shri T.M.Chandran learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Judgment in S.Khushboo's case [JT 2010 (4) SC 478] and that in Latha Singh v. State of U.P & Another [AIR 2006 SC 2522] have been rendered under different circumstances. R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 16:-
20. But we find from the discussion of the facts in Bharatha Matha's case [AIR 2010 SC 2685] that Their Lordships of the Apex Court reversed the finding of the High Court therein, by drawing a presumption, in a similar manner, on the particular facts of the case. Therein, after discussing the evidence, the Apex Court found that, defendant No.1, one Rengammal had been married to Alagarsami Reddiar and, therefore, the presumption of marriage with Muthu Reddiar, who was the deceased brother of the plaintiff in that suit would not arise.
21. Of course, in para.21 of the decision relied upon by Shri T.M.Chandran in Madan Mohan Singh's case [AIR 2010 SC 2933] has stated thus:
"The live-in-relationship if continued for such a long time, cannot be termed in as "walk in and walk out" relationship and there is a presumption of marriage between them which the appellants failed to rebut."
The same is strongly relied upon by Shri T.M.Chandran learned counsel for the appellants so as to consider such a relationship and presumption of R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 17:- marriage in favour of the appellants. We cannot agree in the light of the findings we have already rendered above since herein there had been a marriage between Mukeni Mama, the father of the deceased plaintiff and Lakshmi and there was another marriage between Kumaran's mother as well as deceased Raman. It is not a case where the plea is that deceased Lakshmi and Raman had started cohabitation and had continued the arrangement together till the death of the parties throughout. Therefore, we are of the view that the court below has erred in drawing a presumption in favour of the plaintiff and holding the view that the plaintiff will get a share through deceased Lakshmi who is entitled for a share of the properties of the deceased Raman.
22. In the light of the above, we cannot agree with the view with regard to the above aspects and we reverse the findings on issue No.(4). Cross-objections are thus allowed and R.F.A.No.146/2007 is allowed to the extent of the finding that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of R.F.A.No.146/2007 & C.O.Nos.40/2007 and 53/2008 -: 18:- parties. On all other respects the suit is dismissed. The parties will suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
Sd/
(A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE)
ms
\\True copy//
P.A to Judge