The court upheld Marumakkathayam law over Hindu law for succession of property, concluding the sale deed was invalid as the vendors lacked title, affirming the original rulings.

JUDGMENT :

V. SIVAGNANAM, J.

The Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.35 of 1997 dated 13.02.2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.113 of 1984 dated 19.12.1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

3. The appellant herein is the legal heir of the deceased plaintiff in O.S.No.113 of 1984 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai and the third respondent in A.S.No.35 of 1997 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kuzhithurai. The respondents are the defendants in the suit.

4. The plaintiff Lakshmi filed the suit with the following prayer:-

A) Plaintiff be allowed to redeem and recover plaint ‘B’ schedule property from defendants after extinguishing the mortgage right of defendants over the same.

B) Plaintiff be allowed to redeem and recover plaint “C” schedule property from defendants on extinguishing the mortgage right of defendants over the same.

C) Plaintiff be allowed to recover the costs of the suit from the defendants.

D) Such other reliefs which the Court deems fit and just to grant in the nature and circumstances of this suit.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint ‘A’ schedule property belonged to Madamma Kochappi of Puthuval Puthen Veedu having also Valiavillagam Purayidom of Vallavila of Kollemoode village. The plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are portions of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. While Madamma Kochappi was in possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property she executed 2 Otti deeds with respect to ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. The mortgagees got possession of the mortgaged properties and they were in possession. By successive assignments the plaint mortgages rights over plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties devolved on the first defendant. At present, the first defendant is in possession of the ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties in the capacity as mortgages. The 2^nd defendant has been impleaded since he has obtained some interest under first defendant. Madamma Kochappi was a Hindu and she died as a Hindu in the year 1961. Esakkimadan of Erayummanthoppu Purayidom was the husband of Madamma Kochappi. Madamma Kochappi though married, died without issues. Hence, all her properties devolved on her husband’s heirs under the provisions of HINDU SUCCESSION ACT . Easkkimadan, the husband of Madamma Kochappi had a brother, by name, Kunchainaperumal alias Karuppan. Kunchainaperumal alias Karuppan died leaving 2 daughters. The daughters are Kamakshi and Lakshmi. Thus, the entire plaint ‘A’ schedule property devolved on Kamakshi and Lakshmi being the children of the brother of Esakkimadan, the deceased husband of Madamma Kochapi. Thus, on the death of Madamma Kochappi, Kamakshi and Lakshmi got possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule property except plaint ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. While so, Kamakshi and Lakshmi sold plaint ‘A’ schedule property to plaintiff with a direction to redeem ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties on 15.09.1985. Since there was some clerical mistake crept in the sale deed, a correction document was executed by Kamakshi and Lakshmi on 10.10.1983. Thus, the plaintiff got absolute