The entitlement of female heirs to inherit under the Indian Succession Act after the repeal of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, despite claims of renunciation.

1. The appeal has been preferred by the 1st defendant in OS No.204/2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The suit was one for partition filed by respondents 1 to 8 who are the children of one of the sisters of the appellant. The respondents 9 to 13 are the other sisters of the appellant. The 1st respondent, 5th respondent and 9th respondent died pending the appeal and the 14th respondent has been impleaded as the legal representative of the 1st respondent. As far as the 5th respondent is concerned, respondents 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were already on the party array as legal heirs and as far as 9th respondent, she had already relinquished her rights over the property in favour of the appellant, who is her sole legal heir.

2. The plaint schedule properties, which are three in number originally belonged to late C.P. Joseph who was the father of the appellant and respondents 9 to 13 and the grandfather of the plaintiffs. Sri. C. P. Joseph died on 25.08.1965. His daughter Alima Chacko who was the mother of respondents 1 to 8 died on 23/04/1988. The parties are Christians and the contention in the plaint was that the Indian Succession Act governs the succession among the parties. The plaintiffs claimed 1/7th share of the plaint schedule properties, to which their mother was entitled. All the sisters other than the mother of the plaintiffs had relinquished their rights in favour of the appellant, who was their only brother. The suit was filed 24 years after the death of the mother of the plaintiffs and the cause of action is stated to have arisen in 1965 when the grandfather C. P. Joseph died and in 2011 when the plaintiffs came to know of a partition deed which had been executed between the defendants excluding the plaintiffs. Even though the document of 2011 is styled as a partition deed, as a matter of fact, the entire properties were set apart to the appellant since all the sisters renounced their shares. The suit was filed immediately after the law relating to succession was declared by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mary Roy v. State of Kerala [ 1986 KLT 508 ].

3. The appellant filed a written statement and an additional written statement, contending that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share since their mother had been married of on 04.06.1947 after giving Sthreedhanam. The contention is that at that point of time, the law applicable was the Christian Succession Act, 1092 (Travancore) and as per the provisions of the said Act, the daughters had a claim only for Sthreedhanam and they were not entitled to a share in the immovable properties of their father. The appellant also contended that the suit was not maintainable and was barred by limitation since it has been filed almost 50 years after the death of Sri. C. P. Joseph, and, 24 years after the death of the mother of the plaintiffs, through whom the plaintiffs claimed right. It was also contended that the rights of the plaintiffs were lost by the principle of ouster.

4. Before the trial court, Exts.A1 to A7 were produced on the side of the plaintiffs and Exts.B1 to B7 were produced on the side of the defendants. No oral evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. The trial court raised the following issues for consideration;

1. Whether the plaint schedule property is partible?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are the co - owners of the plaint schedule property having 1/7th right over the property?

3. Whether the cause of action alleged is true and valid?

4. What are the shares to which the parties are entitled in the event of partition?

5. What are the equities and reservations to be made in the event of partition?

6. Reliefs and costs?

5. After detailed consideration of the evidence on record and the contentions raised by the parties, the trial court found