Joint family property is governed by male succession under Hindu Mithakshara Law; self-acquired property as Stridhana leads to limited ownership and cannot be partitioned by reversioners.

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J. The above appeals arise from O.S No.182 of 1990 on the files of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode.

Among the appeals, A.S.No.17 of 1996 is preferred by the second defendant in the suit and A.S.No.752 of 1995 is preferred by the supplemental fourth defendant in the suit.

Parties are referred to in this judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in the suit.

2.The suit was one for partition of two items of properties. Among them, item 1 was a joint family property held by one Rarichan and item 2 was a self acquired property of Matha, the wife of Rarichan. Rarichan died in the year 1952.

Matha predeceased Rarichan. Rarichan and Matha had three children namely, Chathukutty, Sankaran and Lakshmi. Plaintiff is the daughter of Chathukutty. The first defendant is the wife of Sankaran and the second defendant is the daughter of Sankaran. The third defendant is Lakshmi, the daughter of Rarichan and Matha.

3.The case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint as regards item 1 property is that on the death of Rarichan, the same devolved on his three children and on the death of her father, namely, Chathukutty, she being the sole heir of Chathukutty, his share over the property devolved on her. As regards item 2 property, the case of the plaintiff is that on the death of Matha, the same devolved on her children; that the third defendant later transferred her rights over the property to Rarichan and on the death of Rarichan, 1/3 rd of the 1/3 rd right over the property also devolved on Chathukutty and on the death of Chathukutty, the 1/3rd right over the property inherited by Chathukutty directly from his mother and 1/3 rd of the 1/3 rd right inherited by Chathukutty from Rarichan came to be vested in her.

4.The trial court dismissed the suit insofar as it relates to item 1 property holding that the same is the joint family property held by Rarichan and since Rarichan was governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law at the time of his death, the said property devolved only on the remaining male members of the joint family namely, his male children, Chathukutty and Sankaran and on the death of Chathukutty, his rights devolved on the surviving male member of the joint family namely Sankaran, as Chathukutty was also governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law at the time of his death. As far as item 2 property is concerned, the trial court accepted the case set out by the plaintiff and held that she is entitled to 1/3rd right as also 1/3 rd of 1/3 rd right over the property. Accordingly, a preliminary decree declaring the said right of the plaintiff was passed. The second defendant and the supplemental fourth defendant are aggrieved by the said preliminary decree.

5.A cross objection is preferred by the plaintiff in A.S.No.17 of 1996 as regards the decree passed against her in respect of item 1 property.

6.Third defendant died pending appeal and her legal representatives have come on record as additional respondents in the appeals.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the second defendant, the additional fourth defendant as also the learned counsel who is representing the plaintiff and the legal representatives of the deceased third defendant.

8.Inasmuch as item 1 property is undisputedly the joint family property held by Rarichan and since Rarichan was governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law at the time of his death, we do not find any infirmity in the finding rendered by the trial court that the plaintiff has not acquired any right in that property on the death of Rarichan. The cross objection preferred by the plaintiff, in the circumstances, is only to be dismissed.

9. Item 2 property being one purchased by a Hindu female prior to the Hindu Succession Act , the same would fall only in the category 'Stridhana' and it would devolve on the death of the purchaser only on her daughter/s, the third defendant [See Hindu Law by Mulla, 22nd Edition, Page 226].

There cannot be any doubt to the proposition that a female inheriting Stridhana acqu