IN THE HIGH COUHT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Present: The Honourable Dr. Justice T Kochu Thommen Uednesday, th 3rd day of June, 1987/43th Jyaistha, 1909. 5» 9, ii0, 16 o 1980 (4. S.No. 160 of 1976 of the Jistrict Court, Kozhikods and o.s.No. 284 of 1975 of the Munsiff1 s Court, l<ozhikode II.) Appellants:Respcndents:0efendants: 1. \Jelayudhan' s son Aryanthottathil Sankaran, residing at f!//annoor amsom desom in Kozhikode Taluk (died). 2. Velayudtian1s son Aryan thottathil Chayik alias Kunhappu, do. d 3. Alayan:;rttathil dece3ses Sankaran' s wire Ammu, do. 4. Thank»am, Q/0 Sankaran, de, do. s. f'ladhavi, do. do. 6, Ramach andran, 5/o. do. do. 7. Indira, 0/o. do. :::lo. 8. Deuarajan, 5/o. du, do. 9. Remavathi, D/o. do. do. 10. Prathikumaran {minor 15 years) by Gu3rdian t! i 3rd aopellant. 8xt ~,ur,pelamental appell-:nts are impleadad as LRs of 1st appellant as per order on C.M.P.No. 5031 of 1985. Oy Advs. T.R.G. \Jarriar 3nd Sabastian Javis. vs. Respandents:R••«•••Rt•:Appellants:Plaintiffs. son 1. Velayudhan'sLadli.kliJtaa \Jallapali kali, residing at Mannoor amso and desom in Kozhikode Taluk. 2. Vannathodi Ammu, residing at Cheruvannoor amsom and desom in l<ozhikoda Taluk. 3, Vashiyedan Imbichammu, residing at Mannoor amsom and desom in Kozhikode T aluk. 4. 8alakrishnan, P.8.i'ilo. 51218, Dammam 312122, Saudi Arabia. fly i~dvs. R1 to 3:V.R. V,rnkit-:;krishnan 1$87 3H f HI TA ·rJAHJ~ 10 THUJJ H2IH ,t : e±nebne?es:3nstnagesize±rs[f snt.. i f ,_._; . - - ,ns-:rs>tnsc flrijsjjorf1nf-;'('lj\ noe a'RertbuxeisV .r • (bslb) >lu1sT eb,o>!lr1sol>i ni moee,b «rn2rne t . - (18- r.r- -.; ~~ IA '· · -...:.......~~..!..~...!:.I .• 0"1 .r· •;:; t . .. ol!i.f.J bflE sbo>Urb;o:~ ti-ruo:J fol'l:l'alff sr!± 10 arer lf3 oar .0~1 • ...:.f) (.II sbo:4lrl:;.o>i ,.:t:ruo::J 21'11.fonuiwl srtt 'lo 2\'et ,o -!18S ! ors? ts niiesr • oc ·Os uqqer'nui a?Is five} [it!tort nsa# nae g 'rir#tuts is .s: .ob ,uwmll <1Uw • '"""',~ns? a'~a;'•:,.i, 't'.fr'j,; J ~nsysti • , .ob .o hr!nee .o\ .kc{aT .4 .I-- .ob .ob elYtsrlbsM • 2. -, ,,_· f . , i .at .ab i Job· .ob'· .o\C .:tne.Ilsqqs jg!' "io•efU es bsbs8£qml S'I6 e;t-,-Ileqqs fs.tnsmeh,•:iqui.: .2aer 10 rc:.oa o.9"G no qbao I.d a .z V. e?i±if4:a±n[Is;5:zts»xx:e#rebaoqes° nqe · m0ecc z0onei h unities iIel iLeqsILel n»xiii#] 'nsdbuvefsv •t ..~u.tE>T ebo:>l1rts'o>l nl moasb bffS n1 mozs.b bns moem5 '!oonf1£VU'Isrl:J je, tnli::le-e1 ,urnm::\ lbort.t,.,ru1s~ .s r _.:>luls T sb6,f.frts~ i mast n roes 1oonnPl . . . :rs gnibl-sr,'I tummert:Jid:,,1 nsbeylrlesV .t .~UiE r sbo>llM;;;o)t .side 1 ±tu£? ,STR mrE ,8ttd .0.S! ,nae'iT{Is8 • nsnrlc;.t'l>l,d.b-l·f\; .f!.V:E oj n, .avbt l(B T • KOCHU THOPll'ICN, J. Se A. No. 16 of 1980-C JUDGfllE NT The appellants are tha detendan\s in a suit for partition. The case ot the plain\1fte was that the property in question was a salt-acquired property of Velayuiihan. The plaintiffs are the daughters of Velayudhan The l!J)pellants-defendants are the sons of i Valayudhan. The trial court found that tha kanam righta in the suit property belonged to a itakshara joint family I . .... ,., of uhich Veiayudhan uas the kartha, The court fur ther found that in 1956 Velayudhan out ot his private funds acquired the J•nao• r1ght in tha aul t property. The court accordingly held that uhils the kanan right in the suit property belonged to the joint family, the jenmom rig as separately held by Velayudhan. Partition on that basis was thus decreed by the trial court in respect of both these right•• Aggrieved by th• finding that in respect of the suit property the jenmo ri3ht alone belonged to Valayudhan as separate property, th• plaintif"t's appealed. They contended that at any rate the two rlgh\a •rged wh•n -2- Valayudhan acquired tha jenmom right in 19S6 and tharef'ore the asset in question was the exc1us1vs praoerty of Velayudhan and waa partible as such. The lower appellate court did not interfere with the finding or the trial court as regards the joint family character or the kanam right. Nevertheless treating the jenaom right as a separate property of Velayudhan the lower appellate -court held that the tuo rights merged when Velayudhan acquired the janmo! right. The only question now in this appeal is as to tha correctness in law of that finding. - 2. It is not disputed and cannot be disputed in the light of the concurrent rinding that the kanam right belonged to the joint family at all material times, The appellants conceded in their written statement that the jenao! right was acquired by Velayudhan as a seoarate property. Appearing tor tho appellants, shri. TR.G, lariy rightly in my viau, submits that the appellate court was wrong in finding that the tuo rights merged. There could ba no merger whan, aa concurrently round by the courts belou, the kanaa right belonged ta the joint family and the newly acquired JeNIO! right belonged to Velayudhan as I { hia separate property. The tuo rights are therefore incapable of merging in so far as one was tha family right and the other uas an individual right. See the principle stated by the Supreme.Court in Shah_Alathyradag v· agappa, A.IR, 1976 S5,C. 1565, In the circumstances the learned appellate Judge erred in law in upholding the plaintiffs' contention raised for the first time before th appellate court on. the question or merger. The judgment of the lover appe3late court is set aside and the decraa of the trial court is restored in full. The appeal is allowed in the atipvs terms. No coats. 3rd June, 1987. 5d/- T. Kochu Thommen, Judge /True Copy/ ....-.-- y istant RegistrarSJ