AS/520/1949 of MAMMAKKANTAKATH BAVAKUTTY Vs PARAPPA MAPPILAKATH IMBICHI AHAMMAD on 7 March 1958

JUDGMENT

dolivcrad by Kum.are Pillai, J.

--------------------~---------

This appeal arises out of a suit fo!.' pa!'tition.: , -,, c·,J<JPa~tics arc Muhammadans.Thero a=c two sisters named PathummaKutty Umma and Katheessa Kutty Umma, am unde!' Ex-Al Karar"'dated 26~9-1896 cxccutc:l by; the .hc:1.2.s of Pathumm.a Kutty Um.maand by .hor sister Kathoossa Ku.tty Umma a.nd thci r bm therAmmotti Haji,ccrta.:i.n p::-opcrticsV'1C!.'O allottcc1 to KathoessaKutty Umma and tho hcis 0f Pathumma Kutty Umma as tcmw.tsin ca.mm.on, tho share of Kathoossa Kutty Umma in thoso :p!'opo!'-al"tios btecjing%1/2.It is tho p!'opoz.-ty which KathoGssa Kutty UmmaAgot undo!' Ex-Al, that is ow sought to/bo dividcd.KathoessaKutty Umm.a had ono son n.amod Abdul Kado!' and t1:110 daughto!'s,onoof whom p!'ecleeeascd without leaving any .m:r=:e issuo.

N

Dcfondant1 is Abc1ul Kac1c!'' a son.Afto:- the deathsor Kathccsaa Kutty Umma anc1 Abclul Kader, dofcnc1a.n.t1 and hismother,i.e.,Abdul Kadcr's widow,jointly cxocutad an assignmcntEx-Al3 in favou.:.:- of the plaintiff on 3-3-1945 convoyir~ tohim tho sharo which Abdul Kador had obtaincd i.: the plaint-1):!."Dpc::-tics as on.a of the hei!'s of Kathoo3sa Kutty Umma.

0n 20-4-1945, plaintiff also took ar.othcn ssigcntEx-Al4 f'.!'onc1ofon.c1ant 4·_J.J was ono of tho sans of KathcossaKutty Umma 's d~ughtc!' Bcovi who hacl su.:i:-vivoc1 a.nc1 who dioc1'subsequently.Acco::-dir.:.g to tho pl::3intiff',Abdul Kaclc!'Dfhad3rs £>2/3 !'ights in Kathoemrn Kutty"o p.!'opc.!'tics and Bcovi1/3 :-ight.Dci'c::cl::lnt 4 :had1/6!"ight in Beovi 's sha!'G..Plaintiffb!'oughtthe suit £or partition oi tlc shacs l soi an?Ex9-A130nc1 Al4,case ocing :is hc wasC!tit1cd o14/36 of theKathoessa Kutty Umma and thoch:tlcl::-01~~f Puthu.r.im.a Kutty Umma got got unde.!' Ex-Al.Plai~':.tiff claims that ho got 6/18 sha!'oin ho plaint proporica by vituc £ Ex-A1 and 1/18 byvi:i:-tuo of Ex-A14.Kathocssa Kutty U.rnaia•s daughto.!' Becvi had5 child.!'en namely, dofonc1antG 2, 3, 4 and 5 anda daughto.!'named Ma!'ian Kutty who is now dead am1. whaso husband isdo,fcnc1ant 6.Dof'c.tld,:E1ta 7, 8, 9,10 an.cl 1l aro the child.!'onof Ma.!'iamkutty end dofcnclant 6.Dofcnclant 47 is tho ass.i.gnoc11--.,Lif':i:-am tho hill:lband of one Kunhi .Ayiaswnm.a who was s... p.!'adccoaseddaug.hto.!' or Kathoossakut ty Umrna al!'G~H1y.:i:-of'c!':i:-ocl to.

Ir ho 1owc cast, dcrc@ants 2, 5, 4,5,8,7 and47 filed / w2"it ten statcmontsefendant 6 • s w:i:-i tton statement1 dbcizg on hisown bchal± as wall ason b0ha11 3dcfcndat8,9,10 and 11 who wo:i:-o mino!'s and whose gua:i:-dian ho was.Thc plai±ti?s suit wsscpc ctK::Jthoossa Kutty U.mm.a was gove:i:-nedby thG M.uhamma.dan. 1aw.This/.q,osi tion was acccptoc1 by dcfcn-dan.ts 2, 3, 4, 5,6 and 7 and they also cl~lim.ed sha.!'GS in tholowor court in the plairt-proportics on this/bas13.Doan@ant47 contended that Kun.hi Ayiasa Umma was also entitled to;asha:!:'e in Katheessa Kutty Umina's p.!'opG.!'tics, that Kunhi AyissaUmm.a'a husband had obtaL'J.cd a sharo in Kunhi Ayissa Umma'sh.o.d_sharc on hc:.i:- death ar.:.c: that he{tho husba.'1C1) assignod hisnsha:i:-e to defendant 47.

Th l0war court found that daendant 47 had notp:.i:-ovcc1 thoc1ato oi' Kunhi Aiasumma 's death ar.:£1 that thc.!'ci'o :i:-e/-.establishcd t:he hc hucbzd had tao. any ohsi:: Kthccsaa the validity of ;tho assigrJD.cnt takon by defendant 47.Although4..,&dGf'c~-;.dants 2, 3, 4,. 5, 6 a!!c1 7 he:¥£canccc1oc1 t.lmt in 2'.'csocct~f the plaint p.!'opo.!'tics, Katheossa Kutty Um.ma was govo:!:'nodby Muhammadan Law, tho lm11c_:,:,CGU!'t fou.'1<1 that sho was govo:i:-nod~tho Ma:!:'wnakkathayam Law and tho~ofor.c, it gavo a dOC2"GG

to tho plaintii'f' only:fo!' 1/18 of the plaint p!'ope!'ties.Plaintiff has tho!'cfo!'o, filed this appeal, his contentionhc!'o being that Kathoossa Kutty Umma was govc!'nGcl by thoMuhammadan Law and that ho is on.titloc1 to 7/18 of the plaint-properties.Dcfcndant 47 also has filcd a memorandum of Defendants 8 and 10 attained majo.!'ity aftc!' theappeal was filed;and afto!':;they attained majo!'ity, thoyengagoc1 a sepa!'ato counsel in tchis court andnfilcd a petitionho!'e !'epudiating tho w.!'itten-statomcnt filed by dcfcndant 6on thci!' bohal:f'~u:d contcncling that Kathcessu Kutty Ummawas governed by the Ma!'umak.k:athayam Law and not by thoMuhammadan Law.

•If Kathoossa Kutty Umm.a was governed by the Marumak-kathayam ~ Law, defendants 8 and 10 woulc1 be entitled to nl,'.}2/9 of hc proportics.Defendants 2, 5, 4,5 and 7 would,in that case,bo entitled to 5/9 of the plaint-p:.i."opcrtios.It is significant that those parsons,who wcrc entitled tomc than 1/2 share of the properties which bolongoc1 toKathoossakutty Umma, hac1 ac1mittec1 in the lower court thatKathoossakutty Umma was governocl by the Muha.m.nw dan Law andnot by tho Ma.!'umakkathayam Law.Defendants 4 and 7 still~;.·c:__<:_,..,}speak to that posit:ion in this court.Dcfcr@ants22, 3 and 5not1havc/committGcl themselves to any dofinito9.ecisi~ in this-curt, but it has tc be stated that their counsel M!'.Balak.!'ishna E!'adi stutcd at the timeqC hoa!'i.ng t.ha t he had!'ccoivoc1 inst!'uctionc f':_;:-am them to oppose the plaintiff'sclaim.Consicleri.ng the unequivocal admissian madeby themin the lowor c otr:·t, we arc incline c1 to think tlwt thoi !'t="ep!'osent attitude is"fl:I. !'csult 0£ prcssuro brought to bearon hcm byc1cfc.r:c1ants 8 and 10.Having !'Gga!'cl to tho admis-sions mac1o by defendants 2, 3, 4,5 and 7 in the lowor court, WO

we arc inclined to hold that Kathoessa KuttyUmma was govc.!'ncdreally by the Muhammadan Law and not by the Marumak:kathayamLaw.But tho frtz fact rcmains that defencl ant fl 8 and 10havo now repudiated the writ ton-statement filed. by defendant 6on thoi~ behalf i:: the lower court a.?:cl that as they Htteinodr,majo.!'ity only after this appoal was filed, an oppo!'tunity9&«lshas.(...no.!'nlally ~" given to them to,(substantiatc thci,:, case- ·-·that Kathcossa Kutty Umm.a was govc.!'nGc1 by the Ma!'umak:kathayamLaw.Evon ii' she was govc.!'nod by the Ma!'umak:kathayam Law,dei'ondants 8 and 10 would be entitled only to 1:.m3 2/9 of ho~:-p.!'opc!'t:ics ancl. the pursons who arc cnti tlccl to 5/9 had clearlyrz.ac1mittcd in the l::)WC!' cott!'t that she was govc.!'.!1Gcl by .;tluaMuhammadan Law.Thc pcrsns who arc entitled to the rcmaini:1g2/9 a.!'c dofoncl.ants 9 and 11.Doi'cncl.ant11 has not !'cpudiatcc1...sthoW:!.'itten-statcmcnt th::t his i'athc:!.' in the lowc:- coU.!'t ast•his guardian a@mite& th t Kathcossa Kutty Umma was govcrnoc1by the Mu..'llai!ll!l!.:1 c1an Law.Dofe.r.!l.an.t9 attainec1 majority dU.!'in.:;the course of the suit andsho died only aftc~ the1:1p:pcl:1lwus:Ki:ix i'ilccl in this coll!'t.Till hc:i:- death s.ho too hac1 not!"C:pudiatcdr~ ~ w~~ittcn-stetcmGJ-:t f'ilccl on hc:i:- behalf bydefc.n.dant6 admitthat Kathoossa Kutty Ufill.110 weee;o-vc2:J:cdby MLlhr:Eurwcb~: L2:-·M. In the ciz-cu.mst!:1nccs,w1rnt t~ clcfonda:1ts-.-G.Sr8 and 10 ca±: urge is hr/hay should bo given thci!' legitimatesharo in Kathcccsa Kutty Umma' propcrtics on hc basisphatshe was govo.!'nccl by the Ma.!'umak:kathayam Law.

Although_tho plaintiff's case that Kathccssa KuttyUmma was govc!'noc1 by tho Mu..riam.rnadt:)n Law appcars prima facieto[·])[b][c][ t][,..]'-·[u][o]$ln" al :.,·i.--1•;-r•·"'"') c-~,».,- .o_,":\n-l "'i)tr:!tcc1 th:::.t·;;2.tll~! v:lo-w t,,avoidd.olay and furthc complication£plaintiff waswillingto surrcndo± 2/9 shac £um tho shsro that ho has got undo!'Exs-A13 anc1 Al4 tocl.ofc:1cl.r:Jnts 8 and 10.In viG·,v of thisto giva dcfcn@ants 8 and 10 an opportunity to substantiate thci:

thoi!" case that Kathoossakutty Um.ma was govG.!'noc1 by· thoMuhammadan Law.F~tho!', tho ca3e which defendants 8 ancl10 have. put f o::::.wt:i!'c1,,-:- namely that thci:i:- gua.!'c1.ianCIthoi!' fathe!'_,_J>,llac1 acted 1'!'auc1ulcntly in f'il:1.ng the w::-ltten statement, isa contcntim1 which. p!'opc!'ly speaking, should bo raiscc1 by wayof a frosh suit.

So far us dcf'cnc1ant 47 's mcmo:-andum of objectionsis conccrncd,wo arc of tho opinion that thc lowcr courtwas::-ight in !'ofusi.ng to uphold tho valicli ty of the assignmentgivon by Kun.hi.Ayissumma 's husbi:uic1 to him.Although the 01:rncor d.cfon.c1.r::!nt 4?:1.::: tllat Kun.hi Ayissa Umm.a had survivec1 Kathccs-sakutty U.mma and chorcy obtaincd a aha::oc in Kathcossa Ku.ttyAm.ma's p!'opc!'ty on ho!' death,c1ofondant 47 has adducedabsolutely no ovicla.'1.co es::-cgr::i.:-cls theclato or Kunhi AyissaUmma•s doath.

The only otho!' matte!' a:-gucc1 at tho Ba!' was .·thoclaim mado by tho plaintiff in:!."es:pe ct of mesne p!'ofits.Tho lowGr courthas awardoc1 to; the plt:dntif:f mes.no gr:.,fitson.ly in2 rspcet o 1/18 aharc ti givon to him by the prelimi-'na!'Yc1cc!'cc.Plt:lintiffs cou.nscl urgdi·chat in viow of ow.fir2ding that Katlccssa Katy Una was governed by MuhammadanLaw and in view of tho admissions o£ d0fondants 2, 3, 4, 5and 6 and 7, ho was entitled toi all the shares claimed byhim in the plaint o.:- atlcrast to ;5/18 in tho plaint popcrticsand that ho was entitled to get ac1acroo fo~:- m.csno p:':'ofitsin reapoct or that share.

•

So fa!.',. as theql.l£.lstion of mcsnc p,:,ofits is conccr.::cc1,it ha~ to/,bo said that defendant 12, from whom tho mosnoprofits arc claimed, had s caso in his wit;:cn statcmcntthat he was not i.n possession of tho plaint-pr-r.>porticsO!'that ho was not in solo posscssin o£i:ho plaint-proporticsC-.a-»and that tho,heirs waro given thoi!' logit:imato sha!'G oi' tho mosno mosne profit.'ha lowon court has not discussadtchisoontcnti:.,n O!" r.oco!"c1oc1 any definite finding thereon.It i:talso to;bo said :;that ncitho!' clof'ondant12 no!" his Legal•Rop2...csontdtivos llsvc filoc1 ar..y objection to thoc1ec!'oe givonto the plaintiff fo!"/mcsne p!'ofits in rcs:pcn't of 1/18 sha!'O.In the circl.l.l!lStanccs,with a viow to avoid f~thc!' Jiu delayand futU!'o complications, we would rost!"ict thc award ofmesne p:i:-ofits to the -plu:U:t:.ff to ;tho 1/18 share allowwod~by the lowc!' coU!'t and !"e-fsi-.llg mosnG p!'ofits in respecttchc largcr sharc which we arc now awa!'ding to him.

Fo!" thc !'Gasons statcc1 above, we set aside thop!"Glim.ina!'y dcc!.'ce passed by tho lowo!' cou!'tar.:£1 pass af!'csh p!.'clilnina!"y- decree in thc suit: as follows:

It is he!'cby dcclo!'od that tho plaintiff' is ontitloc1to 5/18 of tho plaint popcrics, dcfcndants 8 an10 a:-oentitled to 2/1a1and defendants 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 areentitled to 2/18.Thesha!'e namely, 2/10,to which defendants2, 3, 5, 6,aw•xtt7 and 11 a!'O entitled, will;bo allottedas a common allotment fo!' all thonG defendants togcthe!';andthe sha!'G namely,2/18 ,1 to which dcfondants 8 and 10 a!'Oentitled will;be allotted as comm.en allotment to those two1---dcfendants.Tho lowc!' coU!'t will pass a final dccroG inby metos and bol.l!!ds aftc!' issuing a commission.Plaintiffis allowed to rccovo!' f~orri defendant 12 and. his estate mcsno-·"profits from datc £ Ex-Al4 to this date a or tic shareGo·all:tcll ch.c loocourt has allocd to him by the p!"cli.mina:-y'dcc.:r-ce.Pa!'tics will bur-:· ti--.cL: =-a- Nspeetive costs. ~

We arc notpasci:; any doc?cc £or moor.c pro£its after••'""' - 'C j/l, ---'- --,_this day,as we a!'Cappointing hen!{•',ebsy tho Official Rcccivari'U..'lCtioning in the Tclli:dhC!':,:-Y Dis t:-ict C~ll2?t,8.3 Rccci VG:1:'

•

>.conrh'

'tor Katheess~ Kutty Ummas into±cst in tho plaint propertioa,~~- ~~ •.-·......... ./ II./J'/)Tho mosn.e profits rcalisod by the Official Receiv.er will be disbursecl on application to the lower coUZ"t in acco!'dancewith the shares of the partiesspecified in this doc.!'oe.

Roga!'cli.n.g tho afunj.nis t.!'eti6n of the p:i:aopc.::ty anclhis remuneration,tho Official Rcccivor will take o.::dG.!'Sfrom the lower coll!'t.

-

'1th March 1958.

£sn'

)

I

Il