SATHISH NINAN
Kunju Pillai Gopalakrishna Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Parameswara Panicker Neelakanda Pillai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SATHISH NINAN, J.
1. Challenging the concurrent decree in a suit for partition and redemption of mortgage, defendants 4 and 5 are in appeal. Plaintiff and the first defendant are brother and sister. Defendants 2 and 3 are the children of the first defendant. Defendants 4 and 5 are assignees of plaint schedule item No. 3 property from the second defendant. In this appeal, we are concerned only about plaint schedule item No. 3 property.
2. The property-plaint schedule item No. 3, belonged jointly to the plaintiff, his brother, late Madhavan Pillai and their mother Karthiyayani Amma as per Ext.A1 partition deed of the year 1953. The brother Madhavan Pillai died in the year 1957. His rights devolved on the mother. Thus the mother held 2/3 shares and the plaintiff held 1/3 shares over the property. In the year 1969, as per Ext.A2, the mother and the son-plaintiff, C.R. mortgaged the property to one Padmajan. Subsequently, the second defendant obtained assignment of the rights from Padmajan. Thereafter on 26.11.1977, as per Ext.A4 sale deed, the mother-Karthiyayani Amma conveyed her rights over the property to the second defendant. In the year 1980, the second defendant, as per E
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.