The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of S.22 and S.28 of the Cochin Christian Succession Act and the Travancore Christian Succession Act, respectively, to determine the entitlement of the plaintiff to a share in the inherited properties.

Shamsudeen, J.

The defendants 1 to 6 in O.S. No. 198 of 1981 on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam are the appellants.

2. The said suit was filed by the 1st respondent for partition. Plaintiff and defendants 1, 7 and 8 are the children of deceased Manuel, the 6th defendant is the wife and defendants 2 to 5 are the children of Antony, the deceased son of Manuel. Part of the properties were acquired after the death of Manuel and the case of the plaintiff is that they were acquired with the funds of the family. The acquisition was-made in the name of deceased Antony by the plaintiff's mother. Manuel died in the year 1119 M. E., corresponding to 1944, and the plaintiff's mother died in 1974 and Antony died in 1980. The plaintiff was married in 1950 and the case of the plaintiff was that no 'sthreedhanam' was paid to the plaintiff. It was also alleged in the plaint that the defendants had executed partition deed settling the claim of the plaintiff also, but that does not represent her legitimate share, it was in these circumstances, the suit was filed by the plaintiff.

3. Manuel had properties both in erstwhile Cochin and Travancore States. Items 1 to 5, 8 to 11,15 and 16 were situated in the erstwhile Cochin State, whereas items 6, 7,12,13 and 14 are situated in the erstwhile Travancore State. Item 16 is a building situated in item 1 of the plaint schedule property. Items 7,12, and 13 were acquired as per Ext. B3 in 1120 in the name of Antony. As per Ext. A2, part of the properties acquired under Ext. B3, were sold. The wife and all the children of Manuel joined as executants of the sale deed Ext. A2.

4. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff. In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant he contended that item Nos. 7,12,13 and 14 in the plaint schedule properties belonged exclusively to Antony and that they were not available for partition. It was also contended that the plaintiff was married in 4950 and defendants 7 and 8 were subsequently married and all of them were given 'sthreedhanam' and ornaments and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled, to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties. The allegation that the acquisition of properties in the name of Antony was with the family funds was also denied. Defendants 2 to 6 adopted the contentions of the 1st defendant. Similarly, defendants 7 to 8 also supported the contentions of defendants 1 to 6.

5. Plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and on her behalf P.Ws. 2 to 6 were also examined and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exts. B1 to B8 were marked.

6. The lower court found that there was no evidence of any payment of 'sthreedhanam' to the plaintiff and that therefore she was entitled to a share in the properties situated in the erstwhile Cochin State that Ext. B3 properties were purchased with the family funds and therefore those properties except those which were already sold as per Ext. A2 were available for partition and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the properties left by Manuel in the erstwhile Travancore State. Accordingly the learned Subordinate Judge passed a decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/94th share in the plaint schedule items 1 to 5, 7 to 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16.

7. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge. A cross appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, in which she challenged the finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the properties in Travancore State. It was also contended that the provisions contained in the Travancore Christian Succession Act and The Cochin Christian Succession Act are violative of Articles 13,14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and the parties were governed not by the provisions of those Acts, but by Indian Succession Act and therefore sons and daughters are entitled to equal shares.

8. Learned