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

1993 Supreme(Ker) 519

P.K.IYER BALASUBRAMANYAN
A. M. Abdul Karim – Appellant
Versus
A. M. Mamoo – Respondent


JUDGMENT

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was one for partition on the averment that the plaint schedule property belonged to the thavazhi consisting of the plaintiff and his mother. The parties are Muslims of North Malabar governed by Marumakkathayam law. One Achamma had four children, Mammu, Moosa, Beechumma and Mariyumma. The plaintiff is the son of Mariyumma. Defendants 2 to 4 are the children of Beechumma. Defendants 5 to 9 are the children of Moosa who is no more. Mammu is the first defendant. The plaint schedule properties were gifted under Ext. A1 dt. 9-9-1940 in favour of Achamma and her four children by the 'wife and children of the brother of the husband of Achumma. There was an earlier suit for partition O. S.26 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tellicherry filed by Mammu impleading his sisters Beechumma and Mariyumma and the legal representatives of Moosa. It must be noted that the plaintiff herein, the son of Mariyumma was not a party to that suit. That suit proceeded on the basis that the properties obtained by Achumma and her children under Ext. A1 were taken by the donees as coownership properties and that Ach













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