SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Ker) 446

PADMANABHAN
CHIRU AMMA – Appellant
Versus
KUNHIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the appellants in the second appeal. The simple but delicate and interesting question that poses for consideration is whether a child 'en ventre sa mere' is entitled to a share.

2. Parties were marumakkathayees. Suit is for partition of thavazhi properties. There are four plaintiffs and fourteen defendants. By operation of the provisions of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976), here-in-after referred to as 'Act 30 of 1976', which came into force on 1-12-1976, with effect from that day the parties are deemed to hold the properties as ten ants-in-common as if a partition of the properties per capita had taken place among all the members of the family living on 1-12-1976. Fourth plaintiff was conceived and born after 1-12-1976 and hence no share was claimed. Plaintiff claimed only three out of 17 shares. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are children of the first plaintiff. Third plaintiff was conceived before 1-12-1976 but born only on 20-6-1977. That is the finding of both the courts below. Claim of the third plaintiff for share was disputed by the defendants and the contention was accepted by both the cour






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top