J U D G M E N T

Here is a case where two women fight against each other seeking to establish their rights over the plaint schedule properties.

2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration that Ext.A7 executed by the defendants styling themselves as legal heirs of deceased Sasidhara Bhattathiri is invalid in law and conferred no right on them. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants had no relationship with Sasidhara Bhattathiri and that the first plaintiff was the legally wedded wife and the second plaintiff was his daughter.

3. The defendants resisted the suit by pointing out that the first defendant was married at an earlier point of time to Sasidhara Bhattathiri and she was the legally wedded wife of Sashidhara Bhattathiri and the second defendant was born in that wedlock. They therefore had absolute right over the properties left behind by the Sashidhara Bhattathiri and it was also contended that the plaintiffs had no right to Sasidhara Bhattathiri.

4. Based on the above pleadings, issues were raised and the parties went to trial. The evidence consists of the testimony of PWs 1 to 7 and documents marked as Exts. A1 to A13 from the side of the plaintiffs. The defendants