The court reaffirmed that properties deemed self-acquired preclude claims for partition under the Hindu Succession Act if supported by valid Wills.

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant in the second appeal.

2. The parties were governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law prior to the Hindu Succession Act . The case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Kakkadavath Raman. It is alleged by the plaintiff that Kakkadavath Raman was holding the property as karanavan of his family. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Kakkadavath Raman, his son Chandan became the karanavan and after his death, the father of the plaintiff Gopalan was holding the properties on behalf of his shaka. Gopalan died on 23/10/1983 and his wife Sarada died on 11/12/1991. According to the plaintiff on the death of Gopalan and Sarada, the suit properties devolved on the plaintiff and defendants, who are their children. It is also the case of the plaintiff that as her parents died after the commencement of the , the suit properties devolved on the plaintiff and the defendants equally. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed partition of her 1/8th share in the suit properties. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing separate written statements. The stand taken by defendants 1 and 2, in essence, is that the suit properties do not belong to Raman as claimed by the plaintiff. Instead, according to them, the suit properties were the personal properties of Chandan. It is their case that Chandan executed Ext.X1 Will on 11/04/1939 and in terms of which, properties including the suit properties were bequeathed by him in favour of his three sons and a daughter. According to the defendants, on the death of Chandan, the suit properties devolved on his son Gopalan in terms of the said Will and Gopalan, in turn, executed Ext.B1 Will on 06/03/1978 and thereby bequeathed the suit properties to defendants 1 and 2. In the light of the aforesaid facts, it was contended by defendants 1 and 2 that the plaintiff has no right at all in the plaint schedule properties. The trial court accepted the case set up by defendants 1 and 2 and dismissed the suit and the decision of the trial court has been confirmed in appeal. The plaintiff, who is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the courts below, has thus come up in this second appeal.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as also the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

4. The predecessor of the parties, viz. Chandan, had three sons namely, Kuttiraman, Gopalan and Sreedharan and four daughters. One among the daughters of Chandan was Kalyani. Ext.X1 Will executed by Chandan on 11/04/1939 recites that the properties dealt with therein are his self acquisitions. In terms of Ext.X1, the properties included in Schedule A to the said document were bequeathed in favour of Kuttiraman, the properties included in schedule B to the said document were bequeathed in favour of Gopalan, the properties in schedule C to the said document were bequeathed to Sreedharan, the properties included in schedule D to the said document were bequeathed jointly to Gopalan and Sreedharan and the properties included in Schedule E to the document were bequeathed to Kalyani. There is no dispute to the fact that the properties included in A schedule to Ext.B1 Will is a portion of the property included in B schedule to Ext.X1 Will. Similarly, there is no dispute to the fact that the properties included in B, C and D schedules to Ext.B1 Will is a portion of the property included in D schedule to Ext.X1 Will. The recitals of Ext.B1 Will indicate that as far as the properties included in D schedule to Ext.B1 Will are concerned, the right acquired over the same by Sreedharan was conveyed by him to his wife and she, in turn, released the said right in favour of Gopalan and Gopalan has thus become absolute owner of the property. In terms of Ext.B1 Will, properties included in schedule A, B and C therein were bequeathed by Gopalan in favour of the first defendant and the properties included in D sche