Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. According to the plaintiffs, item 1 was the subject matter of an oral lease in favour of Sreedevi Amma. Item 2 to 4 of the plaint schedule property were leased out by Kelu Nambiar as Karnavan, in favour of Sreedevi Amma as per registered Marupat No.1549/1927 dated 16/6/1927. Thus items 1 to 4 were in possession and enjoyment of Sreedevi Amma till her death and after her death in 1955 the right devolved upon her thavazhy. Kunhikrishnan Nambiar and Rayarappan Nambiar died prior to the commencement of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System  Abolition Act and hence their wives and children are not entitled to claim any right over the thavazhy or tharwad properties. Sankaran Nambiar died issueless in 1986 and his sole representative is his wife, the 7th defendant. Narayani Amma died in 1986 and her children are already in the party array. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 are members of the thavazhy of Sreedevi Amma and they were all born prior to 1/12/1976, Thus altogether 13 member in the thavazhy of Sreedevi Amma as on 1/12/1976 and each of them having 1/3 share over the plaint schedule property. They were holding the property as tenants in common on the day on which the Act was in force. The 7th defendant as legal representative of deceased Sankaran Nambiar is entitled 1/13 share. It is their case that after the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System Abolition Act, the properties have become co-ownership properties. Hence, seeking partition they issued notice to the lst defendant to which a reply was sent by him stating incorrect facts which give rise to the cause of action for instituting the suit for  partition. The lst defendant contended in the written statement that neither plaintiffs 2 to 5 nor defendants 3 to 6 are having any title over the plaint schedule items. He also denied the allegation that in 1955 the rights over the properties of deceased Sreedevi Amma devolved upon her thavazhy. As per the provisions of the Marumakkathayam Law, the rights of properties of Sreedevi Amma devolved upon her legal representatives i.e. children only and in turn their rights devolved upon their legal representatives as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. According to him, as per the lease deed mentioned in the plaint, Sreedevi Amma was having exclusive title and possession over the plaint schedule properties. They also disputed the claim in the plaint regarding the allotment of shares. The assessment of the shares by the plaintiff is also denied. It is contended that the plaint schedule properties are not thavazhy properties and they were never held and enjoyed as thavazhy properties. Sankaran Nambiar was managing the properties as a co-owner and the  defendant has never managed the property. The remaining portion of the plaint schedule properties, after excluding those portions, which were transferred by Sreedevi Amma, were held and enjoyed by her four children exclusively. After the death of Kunhikrishnan Nambiar and Rayarappan Nambiar, Narayani Amma was in possession and management of the properties. On 1120 Sreedevi Amma granted an oral lease in respect of item 1 known as Muthunneri paramba in favour of the lst defendant with a stipulation for payment of Rs.20/- as purappad and possession was also handed over. Thus, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The tenancy right in favour of the lst defendant was accepted and acknowledged by the legal representatives of Sreedevi Amma and a purchase certificate was also obtained as per proceedings in SMC. 1/1985 of the Land Tribunal, Purameri. Thus, item 1 is not liable to be partitioned. Item 2 and and the remaining portion of item 3 excluding 2 plots in it were outstanding in the possession of tenants under Sreedevi Amma  and at the time of her death she was in possession of 2 plots in item 3 of the plaint schedule properlty. The tenants in respect of items 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule properties are necessary parties to the suit. The two plots in item 3 and item 4 of the plaint schedule property jointly belonged to four children of the Sreedevi Amma. The allegation regarding gift deed in respect of 42 cents in item 1 of the plaint schedule properties is denied. The 2nd defendant supported the case of the plaintiffs. Defendants 3 to 6 also supported the case of the plaintiffs. Defendants 8, 10, 11 and 13 in their joint written statement contended that a portion of item 1 of the plaint schedule property exclusively belonged to themselves along with 12th defendant and is not liable to be partitioned. After the death of Sreedevi Amma, her rights over the item 1 of the plaint schedule property devolved upon her legal representatives. In the additional written statement filed by the lst defendant it was contended that item 1 of the plaint lschedule property was never held and enjoyed as thavazhy property and by  virtue of the registered partition karar No.1495/1959 the properties which belonged to Sreedevi Amma and her thavazhy were partitioned. But item 1 of the plaint schedule property was not included in that partition karar. Further there is no mention about the property in that karar. The right if any of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 onwards over item 1 of the plaint schedule property are barred by adverse possession and limitation. The Court guardian of the 12 defendant filed a written statement supporting the contentions raised by defendants 9, 10, 11 and 13. Defendants 14 and 16 in their written statement disputed the descriptions and measurements of the plaint schedule properties. They admit the oral lease in respect of item 1 in favour of Sreedevi Amma. They also admitted the acquisition of items 1 to 4 in favour of Sreedevi Amma as per the Marupat mentioned in the plaint. According to them, after the death of Sreedevi Amma, her rights over the properties devolved upon her legal representatives . They disputed the shares assessed in the plaint.  The 15th defendant filed a written statement contending that after the death of Sreedevi Amma her rights over the properties devolved upon her thavazhy. Defendants 17 to 21 in their written statement contended that Rayarappan Nambiar was having 1/13 share over the plaint schedule property and after his death it is devolved upon these defendants. Above is the summary of the contentions raised by the parties. Further details contained in the plaint and in the written statement are not necessary for disposal of this appeal and hence they are not stated.

5. The court below found that plaintiffs are not entitled to challenge the validity of the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, Purameri, since they are claiming right under Narayani Amma, who was already a party in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. It was the specific contention of the plaintiffs that Sreedevi Amma herself obtained item 1 as per an oral lease from the Karnavan Kelu Nambiar. The lst defendant on the other hand admits the oral lease in favour of in favour of Sreedevi Amma. He further contended that Sreedevi Amma in turn granted an oral lease in his favour on payment of Rs.20/- as purappad. Thereafter, by applying before the Land Tribunal, a certificate of purchase was also obtained by him. There is no dispute that there was a proceedings before the Land Tribunal and a purchase certificate was also obtained by the lst defendant. Though it is contended by the appellants that if item 1 is a thavazhy property,  necessarily the plaintiffs are entitled to the share of the property and therefore in the absence of the plaintiffs being made as a party to the Land Tribunal Proceedings, it will not bind them and the purchase certificate was obtained behind their back cannot validly take away the right for partition of that item. We are unable to agree with the contention of the appellants in this regard. In the Land Tribunal proceedings admittedly Narayani Amma was made a party and the plaintiffs are the only children of Narayani Amma, who claim under her. In such circumstances, it is too late for them to contend that the purchase certificate obtained by the lst defendant in which Narayani Amma was a party will not bind them. The purchase certificate obtained by the lst defendant is a document of title statutorily recognized by law and unless there is any convincing evidence, there is no reason to hold that such certificate issued by a competent Land Tribunal, after making the children of Sreedevi Amma as parties to the above proceedings, in any way vitiated. In such circumstances,  the finding that item No.1 is not available for partition is confirmed.