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

2008 Supreme(Ker) 635

Judgename : V.RAMKUMAR
Mary George, W/o.Late George - Appellant
Versus
Mrs.Lilly, W/o.Late Mathai - Respondents
Case No : RSA.No.1129 of 2008 (A)
Decided On : 11/28/2008

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:N. Subramaniam, Advocate. For The Respondents:Zakeer Hussain, Advocate.

Headnote:

Service Laws - Whether execution of a partition deed is necessary for division of a co-ownership property - Whether the proposition that it is not possible to attribute an attestor to the knowledge of contents of a document is inflexible - Can a release deed be termed as invalid for the reason that it conferred some benefit to the releaser - Whether nomenclature or language of a document has any impact on its identity - Held, Court have no hesitation to conclude that the suit which was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court was wrongly decreed by the lower appellate court - Second Appeal Disposed of.

Judgment :

Defendants 1 to 5 in O.S. No. 392 of 2005 on the file of the Sub court, Ernakulam are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The said suit was one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 1/4th share over the plaint A and B schedule properties admeasuring 29 cents and 24 cents respectively after setting aside Ext.B10 assignment deed dated 28-5-1953. The suit was originally filed before the Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam as O.S. No. 1320/2001 on 20-07-2001. Subsequently on 4-4-2005 it was returned for presentation before the Sub Court since the valuation exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiffs Court. The plaint was thereafter presented before the Sub Court on 30-6-2005. The trial court dismissed the suit. But the lower appellate court reversed the decree passed by the trial court and passed a preliminary decree for partition allotting 1/6 share to the plaintiffs. The lower appellate court also held that Ext.B10 assignment deed is valid as against the share of the assignors but will not be binding as against the share of plaintiffs and defendants 6 to 8. Hence this Second Appeal by defendants 1 to 5.

THE FACTUAL SETTING

2. One Anna who died on 30-09-1957 had two sons by name Vareed and Joseph . Vareed died on 12-12-1935 and Joseph died on 8-11-1985. The wife of Vareed was one Rosa and the wife of Joseph was one Mariyakutty. Vareed had two sons by name Mathai and George @ Vareed. The said Mathai died on 18-11-1988 and George @ Vareed died on 27-12-1994. The first plaintiff is the widow of Mathai and plaintiffs 2 to 5 are his children. 6th defendant is the widow of George @ Vareed and defendants 7 and 8 are his children. Joseph the son of Anna had a son by name George who died on 15-4-1985. Defendants 1 to 5 are the children of the said George. Goerge had two sisters by name Elizabeth and Mary.

3. Thefollowing is the genealogy showing the relationship between the parties and their predecessors:-

Anna - died 1957

Rosa x Vareeth Joseph

1935 1985

P1 x Mathai George @ Vareeth X D6 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5

1988 1994 (DW1)

P2 P3 P4 P5 D7 D8

(PW1)

Denotes male

Denotes female

x denotes marriage

P1 - Ist plaintiff

D1 - Ist defendant

Plaint A schedule property admeasuring 29 cents, the plaint B schedule property admeasuring 24 cents and another property admeasuring 26 cents all situated in Cheranellur Village of Ernakulam District were acquired by Anna and her two sons Vareed and Joseph as per Exts. A1, A2 and B6 registered documents respectively all of the year 1109 M.E. corresponding to the year 1934. On 17-12-1124 M.E. corresponding to the year 1949 Anna and her son Joseph executed a registered document (Ext.B9) possessorily mortgaging the plaint A and B schedule properties to one Ouseppunni. This document executed in the year 1949 contains the following recital:-

"642/5 1 -"

[Mathai and minor George who are the children of Vareed and their mother Rosa have been given in partition the 26 cents of property comprised in Survey No. 642/5 and those persons have no right over the properties scheduled hereunder or any other items and the mortgagee is given this assurance by the executants].

The first attestor to this usufractory mortgage deed is Mathai the then surviving major son of Vareed (S/o. Anna) who had already died in the year 1935. On the same day i.e. on 17-12-1124 M.E. Anna and Joseph executed a registered release deed releasing their rights over the 26 cents of land to Mathai and his minor brother George @ Vareed who were the children of Annas son Vareed. Ousepunni the mortgagee under Ext.B9 is a witness to Ext.A3 release deed under which a consideration of Rs. 200/- was paid to the executees. Thereafter Anna and her son Joseph assigned their equity of redemption over the plaint A and B schedule properties to George, S/o. Joseph authorising him to redeem Ext.B9 mortgage and pay a sum of Rs. 400/-to his sister Elizabeth. Subsequently, as per Exts. B11 and B12 registered documents dated 27-11-1958 and 7-5-1974 Ge







































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top