IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 SA.No. 41 of 1997(E) ------------------------------ OS.21/1986 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKAD AS.59/1989 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): ----------------------- NARAYANAN, AGED 61 YEARS, EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. JANARDHANAN, S/O.ARIMBATHODIYIL PANKU, EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 2. PANKU, AGED 66 YEARS, EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM AMD DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 3. UNNOOLI, W/O.VELAYUDHAN, EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 4. LAKSHMI, D/O.LATE CHERONA, MELATHOOR AMSOM, CHEMMANIYODE DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 5. DEVAKI, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.ARIBATHODIYIL LATE KRISHNAN, EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, MANNARKKADU TALUK. 6. MUKUNDAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 7. RETNAVILASINI, D/O.LATE KRISHNAN, EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. SA.No. 41 of 1997(E) 8. SULOOCHANA, D/O. LATE KRISHNAN, EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 9. SUDHAVATHI, D/O.OF LATE KRISHNAN, OF DO. DO. DO. 10. PRABHAKARAN, S/O. LATE KRISHNAN OF DO. DO. DO. 11. VALSALA, D/O. LATE KRISHNAN OF DO. DO. DO. 12. KOMALAVALLI, D/O.LATE KRISHNAN OF DO. DO. DO. 13. SOMASUNDARAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN OF DO. DO. DO. 14. PRASANTH BOAS, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN OF DO. DO. DO. 15. A. JANAKI, W/O.LATE RAMAN EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 16. A. SIVADASAN, S/O.LATE RAMAN, ARIMBATHODIYIL, EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 17. A. KANTHIMATHI, D/O. ARIMBATHODIYIL LATE RAMAN, EDATHANATTUKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. R1 TO R9 & R12 TO R16 BY ADV. SRI.L.GOPALAKRISHNAN POTTI SRI.A.DINESH RAO. THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- SA No.41 of 1997 ------------------------------------- Dated 10th June 2010 Judgment A very short question regarding the applicability of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, arises for consideration in this Second Appeal, filed by the plaintiff, who has been non-suited by the courts below. 2. The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : The plaint B schedule was set apart to the first defendant, who died pending suit. She was the wife of kitta, who according to the defendants, was a co-parcener. The claim of the plaintiff is that Kitta is not a member of the family and allotment of property to the first defendant as the wife of Kitta, cannot come within the ambit of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 3. The courts below found that Kitta was a member of the joint family and the widow of the first SA 41/97 2 defendant is entitled to maintenance as per law. In other words, Kitta was found to be the co-parcener of the joint family. In the partition deed evidenced by Ext.A1, the first defendant in the suit was allotted properties with the following recital : A reading of the above provision leaves one in no doubt that the property was set apart to the first defendant for her maintenance and it was not creation of a new right for the first time as per the allocation made under Ext.A1 partition deed. If that be so, S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act is squarely attracted to this case. Both the courts have considered this aspect in considerable detail and have come to the conclusion that the property allotted to the first defendant, who died during the pendency of the suit was in SA 41/97 3 lieu of her maintenance as she was the wife of Kitta, who was a co-parcener of the joint family. On the available evidence and materials on record, it is not possible to say that a right was created for the first time under Ext.A1 in favour of the first defendant. Therefore, the courts below were fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the allocation of B schedule property to the widow of Kitta was in lieu of maintenance and that by virtue of S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, it becomes an absolute estate of the first defendant. 4. No grounds are made out to interfere with the findings of the courts below. The courts below are perfectly justified in holding that the property obtained by the first defendant has become the absolute estate and she is free to deal with it as she likes. There is nothing to show that the findings of the courts below are either perverse or illegal, warranting interference by this Court. The Second SA 41/97 4 Appeal is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta SA 41/97 5