A voluntary partition deed conferring rights on a female heir is valid despite prior restrictions under Hindu inheritance law, emphasizing that such arrangements, once consensually made, cannot be contested based on outdated customs.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

1. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.364 of 2013, a suit for partition, filed before the Third Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode. The suit was decreed, finding that the plaint B schedule property was partible. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred A.S. No.72 of 2015, before the Additional District Court-I, Kozhikode, which was allowed by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The plaint B schedule property originally belonged to one Purankal Naragasseri Perachan and Purankal Naragasseri Unni (for short, ‘Unni’), having been acquired by virtue of document No.1444 of 1916. While so, Unni died, and on his death, his right over the plaint B schedule property devolved upon his children Unniatha and Cheriya Upperan. Subsequently, on the death of Cheriya Upperan, his right over the plaint B schedule property devolved upon his wife Chirutha and son Unni @ Bhaskaran. On the death of Purankal Naragasseri Perachan, his right over the plaint B schedule property devolved upon his legal heirs. On 11.8.1958, a partition deed was entered between the legal heirs of the Purankal Naragasseri Perachan and Purankal Naragasseri Unni. The ½ share of Purankal Naragasseri Perachan was taken by his daughters Unniatha and Chirutha, whereas the other ½ of the right of Purankal Naragasseri Unni was further divided equally between Chirutha and Unni @ Bhaskaran, being the wife and son of the Cheirya Upperan and Unniatha, the daughter of Purankal Naragasseri Unni. By an assignment deed dated 1.3.1978, Unniatha assigned her right in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, it is claimed that the plaintiffs and the defendants are in joint possession of the plaint schedule property and hence the suit. The defendant No.1, defendants 2 to 10 and defendants 11 to 14 filed separate written statements. The 1^st defendant admitted the plaint claim and supported the plaintiffs. Defendants 2 to 14 resisted the claim by contending that the sister of Cheriya Upperan, who is the daughter of the late Unni, had no right over the property. Since the death of Unni and Cheriya Upperan occurred prior to 1956, the female heir of Purankal Naragasseri Unni did not derive the right title and interest over the property. Incidentally, the partition deed of the year 1958 was admitted by the defendants, but then, it was contended that since Unniatha’s name was included in the partition deed only for name sake, no right title and interest vested with her, and hence the consequential assignment deed in favour of the plaintiffs has no legal effect. On behalf of the plaintiffs Exts.A1 and A2 documents were produced, and PW1 was examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B37 documents were produced, and DW1 was examined. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the plaint schedule B properties are in the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and defendants?

2. Whether the plaint B schedule properties are partible? If so, what is the correct share of the plaintiffs?

3. Whether the right, if any of the plaintiffs has been lost by adverse possession and limitation or ouster as contended by the defendants.

4. Whether the court fee paid is correct.

5. Reliefs and costs?

3. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court decreed the suit and passed a preliminar