The suit for family pension and property rights was maintainable and not barred by limitation despite the existence of a void marriage dissolution agreement.

JUDGMENT

Substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are, (i) Whether lower appellate court was justified in law in reversing the well-founded decree of the trial court on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation when the same is filed within three years of Ext.A1 judgment?

(ii) Has not the lower appellate court erred in computing period of limitation from Ext.P17 order in O.P.No.14836 of 1996 instead of from Ext.A1 judgment directing the parties to approach the competent civil court?

After hearing both sides,the following substantial question of law is also framed:

(iii) whether the finding of the courts below that the suit is maintainable in the civil court is correct?

2. The second appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned II Additional District Judge, Kollam in A.S.No.124 of 2007 reversing judgment and decree of learned Prinicipal Munsiff, Kollam in O.S.No.917 of 2000 on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation.

3. Short facts necessary for consideration of the above substantial questions of law are:

Appellant claimed to be the widow of Chandrasekharan Nair who retired as a P.D teacher from Government High School and breathed his last on 26-02-1994. Respondents are the mother and nephew of late Chandrasekharan Nair. The parties belonged to Hindu Nair community and it is not disputed that they are governed by the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act and Hindu Succession Act. Appellant claimed that late Chandrasekharan Nair married her on 13-09-1978. He took voluntary retirement from Government service on 31-07-1991. They have no issues. Chandrasekharan Nair died intestate according to the appellant leaving herself and respondent No.1 (mother) as legal heirs falling in class I of schedule I of the Hindu Succession Act and hence they are entitled to succeed to the estate of late Chandrasekharan Nair. She alleged that respondents and others obtained documents from her under coercion which are not binding on her. A marriage dissolution agreement was got executed by her on 22-10-1979 but according to the appellant, that document is void and without any legal effect. Appellant prayed for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife and legal heir of late Chandrasekharan Nair and is entitled to receive family pension from 27-02-1994 onwards, that respondent No.1 is not entitled to get family pension, and for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties with mesne profits. Respondents contended that in view of the declaration prayed for which concerned the marital status of appellant, the civil court has no jurisdiction and that the Family court alone could entertain the suit. They also contended that there was no legal marriage between appellant and late Chandrasekharan Nair and hence appellant is not his legal heir. The marriage dissolution agreement executed between appellant and late Chandrasekharan Nair is valid and binding on the appellant. It is not correct to say that documents have been got executed by coercion. Further contention is that since the government has negatived the claim of appellant that she is entitled to get family pension and ordered that respondent No.1 is entitled to get that pension, the suit filed beyond three years from the date of that order is barred by law of limitation. Learned Munsiff found that the suit is maintainable in the civil court, Ext.A7 agreement as per which the marriage between appellant and late Chandrasekharan Nair was dissolved is void. It was found that there was legal marriage between appellant and late Chandrasekharan Nair and hence appellant is entitled to get family pension and half share in the immovable properties left behind by the said Chandrasekharan Nair. The plea of limitation was found against the respondents. Accordingly, declaration prayed for was granted and preliminary decree for partition of immovable properties was also granted. Respondents took up the matter in appeal. Learned Additional Dis