THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Ammini Tharakan – Appellant
Versus
Lilly Jacob – Respondent
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This appeal is against a preliminary decree for partition. Defendants 8 to 12, who are also the heirs of the first defendant, deceased pending suit, are the appellants. The parties are Christians.
2. David Tharakan died intestate in 1934 leaving behind, his wife Martha; son, the first defendant and two daughters; the plaintiff and Lucy Abraham. Defendants 2 to 7 are the legal representatives of Lucy Abraham. Plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, died pending this appeal. Her legal representative is impleaded as additional 8th respondent.
3. David Tharakan had properties within the territorial limits of the then princely States of Travancore and Cochin. Before the Indian Succession Act, 1925, became applicable with effect from 1.4.1951, consequent on the coming into force of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 (3 of 1951), succession to the Cochin properties was governed by Cochin Christian Succession Act, 1097, for short, the “Cochin Act”, while succession to the Travancore properties was governed by the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092. There is no controversy that the law of succession that applies is so.
4. Plaintiff
Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar [(1996) 1 SCC 639]
P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma [(2007) 6 SCC 59]
Thimmappa Rai v. Ramanna Rai[(2007) 14 SCC 63]. The
Avtar Singh v. Gurdial Singh [(2006) 12 SCC 552]
R.Adinarayanaswamy v. Girraju Papamma and another [AIR 1963 AP 121
Chanabavana Gowd v. Mahabaleswarappa [AIR 1954 SC 337]
Adichan Ayyan v. Kurumpi [1975 KLT 293
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.