Property purchased in wife's name from husband's funds pre-1956 is not Sthreedhanam but limited estate reverting to male heirs under Mitakshara law.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

This second appeal is preferred by defendants 2, 5 and 6 in OS No.882/2001 on the files of the I Additional Sub Court, Thrissur, a suit for partition. The suit was filed by one M.S Sankarankutty, contending that he and the father of defendants 2 to 6 are brothers and that the mother of defendants 7 and 8 is his sister. The 1^st defendant is the mother of defendants 2 to 6. Plaint A schedule property originally belonged to Narayani, mother of the plaintiff. Narayani died during 1945 leaving her husband and children. Plaint B schedule property belonged to Sankaran, the father of the plaintiff. He died during 1947. After the death of Narayani and Sankaran, the plaint schedule properties devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendants. The brother of the plaintiff, Mr.Subramanian, and the sister of the plaintiff, Ammukkutty, died in the year 1988. Now, the plaintiff is the only living person of his generation in the family. There is a tiled house in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and the plaintiff is residing in that house. The plaintiff has no desire to keep the plaint schedule property in joint possession and, therefore, instituted the suit for partition. Defendants 2, 3, 5 and 6 filed a written statement contending that the parties belong to Thattan community and as per the law prevailing in the community, they follow the Makkathayam law. Thus, defendants 7 and 8 are not entitled to any share. The claim for partition was accepted, and they agreed that the property must be partitioned into two equal halves. Defendants 7 and 8 remained ex parte. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A11 series were marked and PW1 was examined. On behalf of defendants, Exts.B1 to B6 were produced and DW1 was examined. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaint schedule properties are partible, and that as regards plaint B schedule property, the claim for partition must be upheld and the property be divided into two equal halves. However, insofar as A schedule property is concerned, the trial court found based on Ext.A1 that the property is a self-acquired property of Narayani and therefore, the same constitutes as a 'Sreedhanam' property and hence the defendants 7 and 8 are entitled to equal share. Accordingly, the suit was decreed and a preliminary decree for partition by metes and bounds was passed. A schedule property was directed to be divided into three equal halves and B schedule property into two equal halves. Aggrieved by the findings rendered by the trial court, the defendants 2, 3, 5 & 6 preferred AS No.73/2006 before the Additional District Court (Adhoc), Thrissur. By judgment dated 20.9.2010, the appeal was disposed of reversing the preliminary decree passed by the trial court in part that the plaint A schedule will be allotted to the defendants 7 and 8 with the house therein, subject to the right of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has the right to reside therein till his death. Hence, the present second appeal by defendants 2, 5 & 6.

2. On 10.11.2025, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

“(a) Whether or not the Lower Appellate Court is justified in holding that plaint A schedule property is Sthreedhana and therefore that the entire A schedule should be allotted to the daughters of Narayani's deceased daughter? Whether the concept of "Sthreedhana" is applicable to Malayala Kammala community while dividing the property of Narayani who died before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act?

(b) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is just