Appeal No 1 of 1962
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 10 1957 of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No 42 of 1954 IT T section Venkataraman and V A Seyid Muhammad for the appellant
A V Viswanatha Sastri G B Pai Shakuntala Sharm and K P Gupta for respondent No 1 1963
May 8
The judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J
This is an appeal on a certificate by the High Court of Kerala against its judgment and decree dated September 10 1957
The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the appellant Kunju Kesavan to redeem an Otti created by one Bhagavathi Parameswaran in favour of 638 one Krishnan Marthandan on 551091 ME for 3500 fanams
Subsequently Krishnan Marthandan created some chittoti
Bhagavathi Parameshwaran made a gift of the property to his wife Bhagavathi Vailiyamma on 931103 ME by Exh
Bhagavathi Valli died on 4111105 ME She had an only son Parameswaran Sivaraman who was married to Parvathi Meenakshi and had a son named Vasudevan
Sivaraman according to the plaintiff left Travancore in 1096 ME and both sides have taken it for granted that he died thereafter
Meenakshi and Vasudevan claiming to be the heirs jointly sold the jenmom rights on 1241123 ME to the appellant Kunju Kesavan and he brought the present suit for redemption of the otti offering to pay 3500 fanams in equivalent money and for improvements if any as determined by the court
The suit was valued at 3500 fanams about Rs 500  which was the amount of the otti and the claim was for redemption of the otti and possession of the fields from the defendants who were in possession
The suit was resisted by the first defendant respondent No 1
Defendants 2 and 3 respondents 2 and 3 filed a written statement but do not appear to have taken much interest thereafter
The first respondent admitted some of these facts
He however averred that the document executed by Bhagavathi Parameshwaran was not meant to be acted upon and Bhagavathi Valli and others never obtained any rights in the jenmom by Exh
He also contended that if Bhagavathi Valli got any rights they were subject to a prior charge of the decree of the District Court Trivandrum in O section No 36 of 1100 ME and that in an auction sale held on 341114 M E the jenmom rights were purchased by the decree holders who were the heirs of Krishnan Marthandan and from whom the first respondent obtained the sale deed
He claimed to have thus obtained the jenmom rights as also the otti rights
639 The first respondent admitted that Sivaraman had left India in 1096 ME but denied the allegation that letters were received from him till II 00 ME  or that till 1108 M E some information was being received about him
He asserted that right from 1096 ME none heard from him or of him and submitted that Sivaraman must have died in 1096 ME or was not alive on 93 1103 ME the date of the gift to Bhagavathi Valli
According to him on Bhagavathi Valli s death her sister Narayani and Narayani s daughter Gouri were heirs and Meenakshi and Vasudevan were not her heirs and thus they never got the jenmom rights
Alternatively he contended that even if they did obtain any jenmom rights they lost them by the auctionsale in OS No 36 of 1100 ME to the auctionpurchasers
The first respondent therefore
submitted that the transaction by sale in favour of the present appellant gave him no rights on the other hand as the auction purchasers were allowed to continue in possession as full owners with the consent express or implied or the acquiescence of Vasudevan and Meenaksi full title resulted to him
The parties are Ezhavas and in the absence of a special exemption under the Act they would be governed by the  Travancore Ezhava Act 1100 Act III of 1100 in the matter of succession and partition
One of the contentions tried in the case relates to this exemption it being contended that Bhagavathi Valli had applied for exemption from part IV of the Act and was thus governed not by its terms but by the general Marumakkathayam law
 The two courts below decreed the suit
The Temporary District Munsiff of Trivandrum held that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the otti and valued the improvements at Rs 1367134
An appeal was filed by the present first respondent and the other side cross objected
The appeal and the crossobjection were dismissed
On further appeal by the 640 first defendant the High Court reversed the decision of the two courts below holding that the plaintiff had not obtained a valid title to the equity of redemption by the sale deed in his favour and was not entitled to redeem the property
The plaintiff has now appealed to this Court on a certificate by the High Court
A preliminary objection has been raised about the competency of the certificate granted by the High Court
It is contended that the suit was valued at 3500 fanams and this valuation governs the suit for the purpose of the certificate and the amount or value being below the mark the certificate was wrongly issued by the High Court and ought to be cancelled
Alternatively it is contended that if the valuation was more than Rs 10000 the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit
The present appeal is against the judgment of the High Court which reversed the decision of the court below and if the valuation was above the mark the certificate was properly granted by the High Court since an appeal as of right would lie
An appeal must satisfy two tests of valuation
The amount or value of the subject matter of the suit in the court of first instance and the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute on appeal to this Court must both be above the mark
There are however cases in which the decree or final order involves directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property above the mark
Such cases are also appealable
Ordinarily the valuation in the plaint determines the valuation for the purposes of appeal
A plaintiff who sets a lower value on a claim which he is required to value according to the real or market value cannot be permitted to change it subsequently because this would amount to approbation and reprobation
But in those cases in which the plaint is not required to be valued in 641 this way a question may arise as to the proper value of the claim both in the court of first instance and on appeal to this Court
The word indirectly  in such cases covers the real value of the claim which is required to be determined quite apart from the valuation given in the plaint
In this case the High Court found the value to be Rs 42000 and Rs 80000 at the two material times
It is obvious that the plaintiff was not required to value his plaint on the real or market value of the property but on the price for redemption
He was not therefore concluded by the valuation given in the plaint
He had asked for possession of the property after redemption and that property as the High Court hag found is well above the mark in value
The certificate was therefore properly granted
The attack on the jurisdiction of the court of first instance must also fail
The suit as valued was properly laid in the court of first instance and in any case such an objection cannot be entertained now
The preliminary objection is therefore rejected
The main question in this appeal is whether Meenakshi and Vesudevan had any title to the property and whether they could transmit any title to the appellant
This depends on whether the Ezhava Act applies or the ordinary Marumakkatha yam law
The ordinary Marumakkathayam law has a system of inheritance in which the descent is traced in the female line
It is conceded that if the Marumakkathayam law is applicable Meenakshi and Vasudevan who were the daughter in law and son s son of Bhagavathi Valli were not heirs to her
The Ezbava Act was passed to define and amend among others the law of succession and partition among the Ezhavas
In its application it excluded Ezhavas domiciled in Travancore who were following Makkathayam
By section 2 of the Ezhava 642 Act the Act could be extended to Ezhavas who followed Makkathayam
No question has been raised before us that it was not so extended and the arguments proceeded on the assumption that it was indeed the answering respondent claimed that Bhagavathi Valli had opted out of part IV under section 32 of the Act and this could only be if the Act was applicable to her
The appellant contended
as we shall show presently that Bhagavathi Valli was governed by the Ezhava Act Makkathayam  means gift by the father
In the Ezhava Act Makkathayam property is defined to mean property obtained from the husband or father by the wife or child or both of them by gift inheritance or bequest
The property in suit was gifted by Bhagavathi Parmeswaran to his wife Bhagavathi Valli and obtained the character of makkathayam property
The first question therefore raised by Dr Seyid Muhammed counsel for the appellant is that though the gift was to Bhagavathi Valli co nomine it operated under the law applying to makkathayam property to confer equal benefits upon Bhagavathi Valli and her issue howlow so ever
Reference in this connection is made to section 32 of the Act which makes a special provision for the partition of makkathayam property and provides 32
Makkathyam property divisible among wife and children equally
Except where a contrary intention is expressed in the instrument of gift or bequest if any makkathayam property acquired after the date of the passing of this Act shall be liable to be divided among the wife and each of the children in equal shares  Provided that in the partition of makkathayam property the issue how low so ever of a 643 deceased child shall be entitled to only such share as the child itself if alive would have taken
 According to the answering respondent the settlement deed Exh
III gave the suit property exclusively to Valliyamma and some other property to the grandson Vasudevan and thereby evinced an intention contrary to the operation of section 32
Dr Seyid Muhammed submits that the ordinary rule of law was that the property was impartable and was always shared by a female of a marumakkathyam tarwad with her thavazhee and cited a passage from MP Joseph s book on the Principles of Marumakkthayam Law 1926 pp 5253 in support of this contention
He also refers to the observations of a Division Bench in Narayanen Narayanen v Parwathi Nangali 1 where it was held that a gift by the rather known as makkathayam to his wife was ordinarily intended to benefit the wife and the children of the donor and though the property was usually registered and acquired in the name of the mother it was always held in common by them
He contends that section 32 made a departure and imposed partibility on the makkathayam property and the only intention that must appear must be in favour of impartibility and such an intention cannot be spelled out of Exh
Section 32 makes the makkathayam property divisible among wife and children equally
The provision is in part VII which deals with partition
It is not possible to say that by the contrary intention only impartibility could be imposed
There is nothing to show that impartibility was the rule in respect of makkathayam property
The two passages only show that ordinarily the benefit went to the thavazhee as a whole
What the law did was to define the rights on partition of makkathayam property and laid down that on partition the shares would be equal 1 644 unless a contrary intention was expressed
The reading suggested by Dr Seyid Muhammed cannot be accepted as the only reading
If one goes by the document Exh
III it is clear that there was such an intention implicit in it
The donor gave some properties to his wife and others to his grandson
His son was then unheard of for years
He thus divided his properties between his wife and grandson and the intention is manifest that each was to take exclusively
Dr Seyid Muhammed next contends that the property was either shared by Bhagavathi Valli with her son and son s son as shown in the proviso to section 32 quoted above or it belonged to her exclusively
In either case be contends Vasudevan would have an interest and could transmit it to the appellant
He argues that if the property was shared by Bhagavathi Valli with Sivaraman and Vasudevan then Vasudevan would have the right to redeem the otti as a person interested and so would the present appellant as a transferee from him
Alternatively if the property became that of Bhagavathi Valli alone then succession to that property would be governed by sections 18 and 19 of the Ezhava Act read with Explanation II which explanation governs the whole of part IV where sections 18 and 19 figure
These sections and the explanation read  18
Devolution of self acquired or separate property of a female
On the death of an Ezhava female the whole of her self acquired or separate property left undisposed by her at her death shall develove on her own thavazhee
If she dies leaving her surviving no members of her thavazhee but her husband and members of her mother s thavazhee one half of such property shall devolve on her husband and the other half on her mother s thavazhee
In the absence of the husband the mother s thavazhee shall take the whole and in the absence of the 645 mother s thavazhee the husband shall take the whole 19
Devolution of such property in the absence of members of her or her mothers thavazhee or husband
On the death of an Ezhava female leaving her surviving neither members of her thavazhee nor other members of her mother s thavazhee nor husband but only the thavazhee of her grandmother or of her other more remote female ascendants her self acquired or separate property left undisposed of by her at her death shall devolve on such thavazhee the nearer excluding the more remote
 x x x x  Explanation II
The expression children  in the case of an intestate male and the expression thavazhee  in the case of an intestate female shall for the purpose of Part IV of this Act include the issue of such intestate male or female how low so ever
 From the explanation it would appear that the expression thavazhee  in the case of an intestate female includes her issue how low so ever and the word issue  indicates both males and females
Reading this expression in connection with section 18 Dr Seyid Muhammed contends that on the death of Bhagavathi Valli the whole of her separate property left undisposed of by her at her death devolved on her own thavazhee that is to say her issue how lowso ever
In this connection a question of great nicety was also argued before us as to whether Sivaraman could be said to have survived Bhagavathi Valli or to have died earlier
In the absence of evidence we need not embark upon an inquiry by the light of presumptions as to when Sivaraman can be said 646 to have died
In the document executed in favour of the answering respondent Exh
R dated 1 7 1121 ME it is quite clearly stated by the predecessors in title of the answering respondent that Sivaraman was then dead
This constitutes an admission which
has neither been withdrawn nor shown to be incorrect and is thus binding upon the answering respondent
It follows that whether Sivaraman survived Bhagavathi Valli or died before her Vasudevan succeeded as an issue  within the expression how low so ever  of the Explanation at least to a fractional interest in the property
He would thus be in a position to transfer that interest to the appellant and the appellant would be a person interested  for the purpose of redeeming the otti
But this can only be if lie provisions regarding succession under the Ezhava Act were applicable to Valli
Though in the pleadings there is no mention that Bhagavathi Valli had secured an exemption from the Ezhava Act parties appeared to have joined issue on this subject
The answering respondent filed in the Court a copy of a Gazette notification which so it was claimed mentioned Bhagavathi Valli s name among the persons who were granted exemption from part IV of the Ezhava Act
Section 33 under which such an exemption from the Act could be claimed reads  33
1 On an application made within six months from the commencement of this  Act i by an individual member of an Ezhava tarwad with reference to the provisions of part IV x x x x the Government may after making such enquiry as may be necessary and on being 647 satisfied as to the truth of the application exempt by a notification in the Government Gazette such individual member from the operation of the said provisions of this Act
 The plaintiff was cross examined about the address of Bhagavathi Valli to prove that it was the same as shown in the notification
Evidence was also led by the answering respondent to show that Bhagavathi Valli had applied for exemption and obtained it
The appellant did not lead any evidence to show the contrary
It is contended before us that the notification or the deposition of the aforesaid witness cannot be looked into when there is no proper plea or issue about the exemption
It is contended that the plaintiff was taken by surprise when the High Court considered this point as he did not get sufficient opportunity to rebut it which he would have done if it had been pleaded and an issue had been framed
In our opinion the parties understood that the only issue in the case was the application to Bhagavathi Valli of the rules of succession contained in part IV of the Ezhava Act
The appellant was cross examind regarding Bhagavathi Valli s address and DW1 an advocate gave evidence that Exh
II was the notification which showed the exemption obtained by Bhagavathi Valli
The trial judge assumed that Bhagavathi Valli had been exempted from the provisions of part IV of the Ezhava Act but he felt that did not affect the devolution of makkathayam property according to the provisions of section 32 of the Ezhava Act
He was therefore of the opinion that after Bhagavathi Valli s death Bhagavathi Valli s sister Narayani and Narayani s daughter Gouri did not acquire any right in the property
In the appeal court the learned District Judge observed that in the notification there were more 648 than one Bhagavathi Valli and therefore it was impossible to say whether Bhagavathi Valli the donee under Exh
III was at all mentioned in the notification
We do not think that the plaintiff in the case was taken by surprise
The notification must have been filed with the written statement because there is nothing to show that it was tendered subsequently after obtaining the orders of the court
The plaintiff was also cross examined with respect to the address of Bhagavathi Valli and the only witness examined on the side of the defendant deposed about the notification and was not cross examined on this point
The plaintiff did not seek the permission of the court to lead evidence on this point
Nor did he object to the reception of this evidence
Even before the District judge the contention was not that the evidence was wrongly received without a proper plea and issue but that the notification was not clear and there was doubt whether this Bhagavathi Valli was exempted or not
The parties went to trial fully understanding the central fact whether the succession as laid down in the Ezhava Act applied to Bhagavathi Valli or not
The absence of an issue therefore did not lead to a mistrial sufficient to vitiate the decision
The plea was hardly needed in view of the fact that the plaintiff made the following plea in the replication The suit property was obtained as makkathayam property by Bhagavathi Valli under the Ezhava Act
And as per the provisions in the said Act the said property was obtained exclusively by Vasudevan subsequent to the death of the said Bhagavathi Valli and Sivaraman and the notification was filed to controvert his allegation
In our opinion the subject of exemption was properly raised between the parties and considered in the High Court and the courts below
The High 649 Court differed from the District Court with regard to the notification and held that Bhagavathi Valli was exempted from the operation of part IV of the Ezhava Act
We shall now consider whether the finding on this part of the case given by the District judge or that given by the High Court is correct
II is a notification issued in 1102 ME
It reads  Whereas the undermentioned persons have applied to the Government under Section 33 1i of the Travancore Ezhava Regulation Act 3 of 1100 ME praying to exempt them from the provisions of Part IV of the said regulation and whereas the Government have become convinced of the truth of their application on making enquiries
The Government have exempted each of the following persons from the provisions of Part IV of the Travancore Ezhava Regulation Act 3 of 1100 ME Huzur Trivandrum
By order 8th January 1927 K George Chief Secretary to Government section No Full name of the person
Address
Bhagavathi Valli belong Thottuvarambu ing to the branch of Bha Bungalow Kat gavathi Bhagavathi of akampalli Paku Pinarummoottu tarwad thi Trivandrum Taluk 171
Bhagavathi Narayani of do Pinarummootu tarwad 172
Narayani Gouri of do  Pinarummootu tarwad 650 section No Full name of the person Address 183
Narayanan Lakshmanan Vanchiyoor Pa of Pinarummototu kuthi Trivand rum 185
Bhagavathi Valli of do Pinarummoottu 186
Bhagavathi Narayani do It was contended by the answering respondent that Bhagavathi Valli at No 170 is this Bhagavathi Valli
His witness Mathan Kuruvila an advocate deposed that Bhagavathi Valli shown at No 170 was Bhaga vathi Valliamma and Bhagavathi Narayani at No 171 was her sister and Narayani Gouri at No 172 was Narayani s daughter
The plaintiff admitted that he had seen Bhagavathi Narayani on several occasions that their house was called Thottuvarambu that Pinarummoottu Veedu was the name of the tarwad house that Thottuvarambu Veedu is in Katakam Palli Pakuthi and that he did not know whether Gouri was also residing in Thottuvurambu Veedu
Dr Seyid Muhammed refers to a number of documents in which the address of Bhagavathi Valli was shown as Pinarummoottu Veedu in Vanchiyoor Pathirikari Muri
These documents were of the years 1928 to 1938
They are exhibits C D KLM Q and R He contends that in all these documents except one Exh Q the address of Bhagavathi Valli or of her sister was shown as Pinarummoottu Veedu in Vanchiyoor Pathirikari Muri which is not the address shown in Exh
II and that Bhagavathi Valli at No 170 was not this Bhagavatht Valli
In Exh
Q however Bhagavathi Narayani deposing in an earlier suit in 1110 ME 1935 gave 651 her address as Pinarummoottu Veedu in Vanchiyoor Pathirikari Muri and now in Thottuvaramba Bungalow in Katakampulli Pakuthi and stated that she had an elder sister by name Bhagavathi Valli who was residing in the Veedu
It is therefore clear that the tarwad had two places of residence one Veedu in Vanchiyoor Pathirikari Muri and the other a bungalow called Thottuvaramba in Katakampalli Pakuthi
One of these addresses is given in Exh
It would therefore follow that the address as given in Exh11 does not show that this was some other Bhagavathi Valli
Indeed the points which identify the suit Bhagavathi Valli with the Bhagavathi Valli mentioned at No 170 are numerous
The name is correctly described
It is also a fact that she belonged to the Bhagavathi Bhagavathi branch
Further she was of Pinarummoottu tarwad
Then follow two other names namely Bhagavathi Narayani and Narayani Gouri who also belonged to the same branch and tarwad and who could be none other than her sister and her niece
Even the address is correct
It is therefore quite clear that the High Court was right in holding that the identity had been established
The observation of the learned District judge that there were many Bhagavathi Vallis in the list is not borne out on the record of this case because the only other Bhagavathi valli mentioned at No 185 may or may not be the same Bhagavathi Valli whose name is mentioned in conduction with one Narayanan Lakshmanan of Pinarummoottu Vanchiyoor Pakuthi Trivandrum
In the other notification under which exemption from part VII of the Act was notified the branch of Bhagavathi Bhagavathi of Pinarummoottil tarwad was again shown to be at Thottuvaramba Bungalow in Katakampalli Pakuthi in Trivandrum Taluk while Pinarummoottil tarwad was shown as at Pathirikari Muri in Vahchiyoor Pakuthi in Trivandrum
This again proves that the tarwad had two houses which were occupied by different branches
652 We are satisfied that the exemption under the Act has been duly proved in this case
Since Bhagavathi Valli was not subject to part IV of the Ezhava Act it is obvious that under the pure Marumakkathayam law Meenakshi and Vesudevan were not her heirs but Bhagavathi Narayani and her daughter Gouri
Of these Gouri Narayani joined in executing the document R  in favour of the answering respondent which was executed by the legal representatives of the original mortgagee
In our opinion therefore the High Court was right in holding that the present appellant was not entitled to redeem the otti having never enjoyed the jenmom rights
The appeal therefore must fail and is dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The property in the suit originally belonged to one Bhag avathi Parameswaram who created an otti in favour of one Krishnan Marthandam for 3500 fanams about Rs 500 
Subsequently the latter created a chittoti Bhagavathi Parameswaram some years later in 1163 ME made a gift of the property to his wife Bhagavathi Valli
Bhagavathi Valli died in 1105 ME She bad an only son Sivaraman who was mar ried to Parvathi Meenakshi and had a son named Vasudevan
Sivaraman left Travancore in 1096 ME
Both sides are agreed that he died thereafter
But there is no aggreement as to the date of his death
ad Vasudevan claiming 635 to be the heirs jointly sold the jenmom rights in 1123 ME to the present appellant
The appellant brought a suit for the redemption of the otti and recovery of possession of the property from the defendant present respondent No 1
The defendant denied that Bhagawathi Valli ever got the jenmom right
He claimed to have obtained both the jenmom right as well as other rights
According to him on Bhagavathi Valli s death her sister B Narayani and Narayani s daughter Gouri were heirs through whom he traced his title
He further contended that even if Meenakshi and Vasudevan got any jenmom right they lost it by the auction sale in OS No 36 of 1100 M E
For these reasons it was contended that the plaintiff had no title to sue
It is admitted by both parties that the case is governed by the Travancore Ezhava Act 1100
The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit but the High Court reversed the decision of the courts below holding that the plaintiff had not obtained a valid title to the equity of redemption by the sale deed in his favour and was not entitled to redeem the property
The plaintiff thereupon appealed to this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court
A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent about the competency of the certificate granted by the High Court
It was contended that since the suit was valued at 3500 fanams Rs 500  this valuation governed the suit for the purpose of the certificate and this value being below the prescribed minimum under article 133 of the Constitution the certificate was not competent
It was alternatively contended that if the valuation was more than Rs 10000 the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the ordi nary rule of law was that property was impartable and that section 32 of the Act made a departure and imposed partibility on the Makkothayam property and the expression contrary intention  contemplated in section 32 was an intention contrary to partibility and such an intention could not be spelled out from exhibit III the gift deed
It was contended that if the property was shared by Bhagavathi Valli with Sivaraman and Vasudevan then Vasudevan would have the right to redeem the Otti as a person interested and so would the appellant a transferee from him
Alternatively if the property became that of Bhagavathi Valli alone then Vasudevan would be entitled to succeed to the property left by Bhagavathi Valli by virtue of sections 18 636 and 19 of the Act provided Bhagavathi Valli was not exempted from the operation of the Act under section 33
It was further contended that since the question of exemption was not pleaded by the defendant respondent in his written statement and since no issue was framed the High Court ought not to have considered the notification put in by the respondent in his evidence purporting to prove that Bhagavathi Valli was exempted
Finally it was urged that the notification does not in fact prove that she was so exempted since her identity is not established by the notification
Held that for the certificate to be competent the appeal must satisfy two tests of valuation
The amount or value of the subject matter of the suit in the court of first instance and the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute on appeal to this Court must both be above the mark
There are however cases in which the decree or final order directly or indirectly involves some claims or question to or respecting property above the mark
Such cases are also appealable
The word indirectly  in such cases coven the real value of the claims which is required to be determined quite apart from the valuation given in the plaint if the property was not required to be valued for the purposes of the suit on the market value
In the present case the High Court found the value to be Rs 42000 and Rs 80000 at the material times
The plaintiff was not required to value his plaint on the real or market value of the property but on the price for redemption
He had asked for possession of the property after redemption and the property as the High Court has found is well above the mark in value
The certificate is competent
The suit as valued was properly laid in the court of first instance and in any case such an objection cannot be raised for the first time in this Court
The working of section 32 does not justify the contention that by reason of the expression contrary intention  only impartibility could be imposed
What the law did was to define the rights on partition of makkathayam property and laid down that on partition the shares should be equal unless a contrary Intention was expressed
The gift deed exhibit III in the present case shows that the properties given to the donees are to be taken by each exclusively
Reading sections 18 and 19 it follows that whether Sivaraman survived Valli or died before her Vasudevan would succeed as an issue within the expression how low so ever  of the Explanation to section 19 at least to a fractional interest in the property
637 But this can only be if Bhagavathi Valli was not exempted from the operation of Part IV of the Act
The parties went to trial fully understanding the central fact whether the succession as laid down in the Ezhava Act applied to Bhagavathi Valli or not
The absence of an issue therefore did not lead to a material sufficient to vitiate the decision
The plea was hardly needed in view of the fact that the plaintiff stated in his replication that the suit property was obtained as makkathayam property by Bhagavathi Valli under the Ezhava Act
The subject of exemption from Part TV of the Ezhava Act was properly raised in the trial Court and was rightly considered by the High Court
The High Court was right in holding that the identity of Bhagavathi Valli had been established and that Bhagavathi Valli was exempted from the operation of the Ezhava Act Part IV
The present appellant
is not entitled to redeem the otti having never enjoyed the jenmom rights