The possession in lieu of maintenance over a specified property must be on the female's independent right to sustain a claim under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

1. These three appeals arise from the common judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Thrissur in two appeals, A.S.Nos.415 and 502 of 1999, which in turn arise from the judgment and decree rendered by the Learned Principal Munsiff, Thrissur in O.S.No.471 of 1984, a suit for partition.

2. The appeal, R.S.A.No.415 of 2003 is filed by defendants 9 to 11 in the suit, who are the widow and children of the 1st defendant, who had passed away pending the suit. The other two appeals, R.S.A.Nos.517 and 588 of 2003, both of them are filed by defendants 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 in the suit jointly. They have filed the above appeals separately as against the common judgment rendered by the lower appellate court in A.S.Nos.415 and 502 of 1999. One second appeal alone would have been sufficient as the two first appeals arose from the decision rendered in a single suit, but, these appellants have chosen to file two separate appeals.

3. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8, who alone were present in the party array when the suit was laid, are the children of one Sankunni Vaidiar, and they belong to Hindu Perumannan Community. Sankunni Vaidiar, their father, died on 16.3.1954, and their mother, Kunhikutty passed away on 19.5.1982. Suit properties originally belonged to the father of Sankunni Vaidiar, namely, Kuttan Vaidiar. Kuttan Vaidiar had executed a Will, by which, the properties were bequeathed in favour of his two sons, Sankunni Vaidiar and Govindhan Vaidiar. After the death of Sankunni Vaidiar, according to the plaintiff, whatever rights he had over the property devolved upon his wife and children. Kunhikutty, the mother of the parties having passed away, it was alleged, her right over the properties also devolved equally upon the children, the parties to the suit. Setting forth a case that there was a partition of the properties as between the legal heirs of Sankunni Vaidiar and Govindhan Vaidiar, his brother, and the property described in the suit had been set apart towards the share of the wife and children of Sankunni Vaidiar, and claiming to be in joint possession of such properties with the other co-owners, the plaintiff sought for division of her 1/9th share and separate possession in the suit.

4. The defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 filed a joint written statement, in which, denying the allegations imputed to claim partition, they disputed the right of the plaintiff to seek division of the suit properties. According to these defendants, after the death of Sankunni Vaidiar, their father, the properties, which were bequeathed to Sankunni Vaidiar and Govindhan Vaidiar by late Kuttan Vaidiar, were divided under a partition deed (Ext.B1) dated 17.7.1954. Under that partition deed, the 1st defendant, the only son of Sankunni Vaidiar obtained the entire property, which was due as the share of his father. Kunhikutty, the wife of Sankunni Vaidiar, and the mother of the parties to the suit, never inherited any property, was their case. She had only a right to reside in the building situated in one of the items of the properties as per the terms of the partition deed. She had represented the 1st defendant, who then was a minor, when the deed was executed with Govindhan Vaidiar, the brother of Sankunni Vaidiar. Plaintiff was educated and her marriage was conducted with the income derived from the properties and she has no right or possession over such properties, and Kunhikutty also had no right, which was capable of devolving upon her children by way of inheritance, according to these defendants. Alternatively, it was also contended that the right of the plaintiff, if any, over the suit properties has been lost by ouster and adverse possession of the 1st defendant, who all along continued to be in possession asserting his claim as owner of the properties.

5. The defendants 9 to 11 in the suit adopted the contentions raised by the above defendants, and the 5th defendant after appearance, did not file any statement.

6. The evidence, at the