P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

This first appeal has come up before the Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench doubting the correctness of the decision rendered by an earlier Division Bench in Jose v. Ramakrishnan Nair Radhakrishnan and others (AIR 2004 Kerala 16) as to the application of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 ('the Act' for brevity).

2. Though it is not necessary to go deep into the facts of the case for the purpose of deciding the question referred for decision and the correctness of the decision in Jose (supra), as we propose to decide the appeal by this judgment, the facts of the case need to be stated.

3. The appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for partition. The plaintiff is the sister of the defendants.

The parties belong to Hindu Thiyya community of South Malabar. The suit properties belonged to Perachan, the father of the parties. Perachan obtained the suit properties under a kanom deed of the year 1937. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that Perachan died prior to the Act; that he was survived by his wife Imbichipennu, his sons, the defendants and his daughters, the plaintiff and Karthiayani; that as the plaintiff and her sister Karthiayani were unmarried, they acquired a limited ownership in the suit properties on the death of their father Perachan; that the said limited ownership became absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14 of the Act; that Karthiayani died unmarried and issueless on 10.9.1972; that Imbichipennu died on 22.8.1985 and that since Karthiayani and Imbichipennu are survived by the plaintiff and defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit properties which is in the joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants are not acceding to the requests of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit properties.

4. The defendants contested the suit contending mainly that they being the male children of Perachan, the suit properties devolved on them exclusively on the death of Perachan in terms of the principles of Hindu Mitakshara law applicable to them and they are in exclusive possession of the same. It was also contended by them that even if it is conceded that their mother Imbichipennu had acquired a limited ownership in the suit properties and the said limited ownership blossomed into an absolute ownership by virtue of Section 14 of the Act, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the suit properties through Imbichipennu as she had released whatever rights she had over the suit properties in favour of the defendants by a registered instrument.

5. The trial court, among others, found that the plaintiff had at the most only a right to maintenance out of the income from the suit properties and the said right would not blossom into an absolute right by virtue of Section 14 of the Act, to claim partition. As regards the right claimed by the plaintiff through her mother, the trial court found that if at all the mother had acquired any right in the suit properties, the plaintiff cannot claim any right through her mother in the light of Ext. B1 release deed executed by Imbichipennu in favour of the defendants. The suit, in the circumstances, was dismissed. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the decision in the suit.

6. When the parties are Hindu Thiyyas of South Malabar and when no specific custom in derogation to any of the rules of pristine Hindu Mithakshara law has been pleaded or proved, it can be presumed that the parties were governed by the principles of Hindu Mithakshara law, prior to the Act. The plaintiff claims a share in the suit properties on two grounds. The first ground is that being the unmarried daughter of Perachan, she was entitled to maintenance out of the income from the suit properties and the said right to maintenance blossomed into an absolute right under Section 14 of the Act. The second ground is that her mother Imbichip