IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 668 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RFA.180/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ---------------------- 1. BALACHANDRA MENON, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA PANICKER, NEDUMPILLY HOUSE, KODANADU KARA, KODANADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUKM NOW RESIDING AT H.NO.24/112/2, SAKTHI NAGAR, POONKUNNAM KARA, POOKUNNAM P.O., 680 002, THRISSUR VILLAGE & TALUK. 2. JAALAKSHMI, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.NEELAKANDA PILLAI, NEDUMPILLY HOUSE, KODANADU KARA, KODANADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,NOW RESIDING AT KAMALA NIVAS, TATA PIPELINE, AYYAPPANKAVU, THRIKKANARVATTOM KARA, E.K.M. NORTH P.O., COCHIN -18, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNURTALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MOHANACHANDRA MENOM, S/O.KRISHNA PANICKER, NEDUMPILLY HOUSE, KODANADU KARA, KODANADU VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, NOW RESIDING ATV ISWABHAVAN HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLY, MUDAVOR KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN 686 661. 2. RAJENDRAMENON, S/O.KRISHNA PANICKER, JAYAVIHAR,NEDUMPILLY, KODANADU KARA, KODANADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, 683 544. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- R.P.No.668 OF 2011 IN R.F.A.No.180 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of September, 2011 O R D E R Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1. This review petition is filed with an application seeking condonation of delay. It arises from a suit for partition. The appeal was heard and dismissed in limine at the stage of admission. 2. The defendants are the appellants. In the appeal, the partability of the suit property was not under challenge. No such argument was addressed at the time of consideration of the appeal for admission. We also noted that the relationship between the parties is not being disputed. The Joint Family System did not survive the coming into force of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, hereinafter, 'the Act', for short. We had, accordingly, affirmed the view of RP.668/11 2 the trial court in this regard. The objection of the defendants to the plaintiffs' case as to the existence of a marumakkathayam thavazhy was found against by the court below. When we heard the RP, we again read Ext.A1, the partition deed, under which, the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants, Vimalamma, were alloted properties. That allotment was made jointly in her name and in the name of her then children and also specifically stating that such allotment inures to the benefit of the children who would be born to her thereafter. With such clear statement in A1, we need not search on further to hold that it was an allotment in favour of the thavazhy of which she was the karanavathy (manager). That allotment inures to the benefit of the children subsequently conceived and born after such allotment. For support, see Mary v. Bhasura Devi [1967 KLT 430 (FB)], wherein the Bench consisting of five Judges had overruled the earlier view and laid down the law that a subsequently conceived child gets a right by birth in the property obtained by its mother as her separate share in the partition of her RP.668/11 3 tarwad. There is considerable controversy in the academic arena among the jurists regarding the views expressed by a later Full Bench presided by five Judges in Chellamma Kamalamma v. Narayana Pillai [1993 (1) KLT 174 (FB)]. The law laid as part of the ratio decidendi, that precedent includes the clear finding as to the application of Section 7(2) of the Joint Family System (Abolition) Act, noted above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, made reference to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act to say that the property possessed by a female Hindu would become her absolute property, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act. Section 14 itself speak only about the property which is possessed by a female Hindu, thereby meaning that it is possessed by her exclusively. The concept of limited interest which was usurped by legislative intervention through Section 14 is not the type of possession which a karnavathy or the manager would exercise over the joint RP.668/11 4 family property alloted to the thavazhy of which she is the karanavathy. We, therefore, overrule this contention. 4.At any rate, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record for review. The review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.3/10.