Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The question of law involved in this case for the purpose of this appeal is this.

Whether the lower appellate court is correct in law in applying S. 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act to award share to the second plaintiff on the pleadings and evidence in the case.

4. Admittedly the plaint schedule properties originally belonged to Kunjiraman Nambiar. He passed away. According to the plaintiffs after the death of Kunjiraman Nambiar his property devolved on plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the first defendant. The plaintiffs would allege that the second defendant claims to be the widow of Kunjiraman Nambiar. Even though it is alleged in the plaint that she claims to be the wife of Kunjiraman Nambiar at the time of hearing it was admitted that the second defendant was the legally wedded wife of deceased Kunjiraman Nambiar. It is also an admitted fact that a son was born to Kunjiraman Nambiar through the second defendant. The first plaintiff claims to be the legally wedded wife of deceased Kunjiraman Nambiar. It is in evidence that on the date of the alleged marriage of the first plaintiff with Kunjiraman Nambiar, Kunjiraman Nambiar had a son, who is the first defendant herein. The status of the first defendant is admitted by the plaintiffs. To prove that there was a valid marriage between the first plaintiff and deceased Kunjiraman Nambiar the plaintiffs relied on Exts. A1 to A6. Ext. A1 is the extract of the certificate of birth of the second plaintiff issued by Purameri Panchayat wherein the dale of birth of the second plaintiff is noted as 1.5.1970. But the birth was registered in the Panchayat only on 6.6.1984 which is after the date of suit. On that ground the court below rejected the said document. Ext. A2 is the voters list relating to Purameri Panchayat of the year 1978. wherein the name of the first plaintiff is entered. 4th column in the voters list is for nothing the names of either the father, or karanavan or husband. Against the name of the first plaintiff Kunjiraman Nambiar's name is mentioned. First plaintiff is seen residing in House No. 377. Ext. A3 is a paper report regarding the murder of Kunjiraman Nambiar. It is reported in the papers that he has left behind his widow Radha Amma who is the first plaintiff herein and son Gopalan the first defendant. This paper report also shows the photograph taken after the murder of Kunjiraman Nambiar. The second plaintiff is seen carried by the then Chief Minister Karunakaran. Exts.A4 and A5 are notices issued from the office of the Circle Officer of Co-operative Societies, Badagara demanding remittance of loan amounts taken by Kunjiraman Nambiar. These letters were addressed to the first plaintiff. Ext. A6 is a relinquishment deed executed by the first plaintiff and also the other members of Kunjiraman Nambiar's family. These documents go to show that plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2 along with other members of Kunjiraman Nambiar's family executed a surrender deed in respect of their right over the property in 1979. This would go to show that plaintiffs 1 and 2 were recognised as wife and son of deceased Kunjiraman Nambiar by the present defendants 1 and 2. They are signatories to the document. There is nothing on record to show that the second defendant has ever challenged that document. The first plaintiff as PW. 1 has deposed that her marriage with Kunjiraman Nambiar was solemnised at Guruvayoor temple. To prove that there was a marriage between Kunjiraman Nambiar and 1st plaintiff, the plaintiffs examined PW. 2. The 2nd defendant has not come forward either to file a written statement or to give evidence denying the marriage of the 1st plaintiff with Kunjiraman Nambiar.