Dismissed

Rahelamma Chacko v. Geevarghese Annamma

Kerala HC22 Sept 2010SA/538/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal in a partition suit. The court held that the Travancore Christian Succession Act which barred daughters given in marriage with Sthreedhana from inheriting was repealed by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, and succession is now governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; preliminary decree in favour of the 1st respondent stands.

Rahelamma Chacko Vs Geevarghese Annamma — Partition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932

¶5

SA.NO. 538 OF 2002()

¶6

-------------------{AS.28/1994 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA IN OS.444/1990 OF MUSNIFF COURT, ADOOR}

¶7

APPELLANT(S): ADDL.APPELLANT 2, 4 & 5/1ST DEFENDANT:

¶8

¶9

RAHELAMMA CHACKO, THADATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, AYYANKOIKAL MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶10

T.C.AMMINIKUTTY,

¶11

THADATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, AYYANKOIKAL MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶12

T.C.MARIAMMA,

¶13

THADATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, AYYANKOIKAL MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE

¶15

RESPONDENT(S): RESPS.1 TO 6/ADDL.APLNTS.3,6 & 7/PLNTFS.1 TO 6:

¶16

¶17

GEEVARGHESE ANNAMMA,

¶18

BLOCK NO.50,AVALUKUNNU WARD,ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY ALAPPUZHA TALUK FROM THADATHIL VEEDU, AYYAMKOICKAL MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶19

GEEVARGHESE,

¶20

THADATHIL PADINJATTETHIL VEEDU FROM THADATHIL VEEDU, AYYAMKOICKAL MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶21

SUSAMMA,

¶22

THADATHIL PADINJATTECHIL VEEDU FROM THADATHIL VEEDU, AYYAMKOICKAL MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶23

SA.NO. 538 OF 2002

¶24

:: 2 ::

¶25

BABY VARGHESE,

¶26

KOKKATHU KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, PANNIVIZHA MURI, ADOOR VILLAGE.

¶27

ANNAMMA GEORGE, PLAVILAYIL PUTHEN PURACKAL VEEDU, PULAMON KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK FROM KOKKATHU KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU,PANNIVIZHA MURI, ADOOR VILLAGE.

¶28

T.THANKACHAN, THADATHIL VEEDU, AYYAMKOICKAL MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶29

T.C.VARGHESE,

¶30

THADATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, AYYANKOICKAL MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶31

T.C.MATHEW,

¶32

THADATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, AYYANKOICKAL MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶33

T.C.SABU, THADATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, AYYANKOICKAL MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK.

¶34

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN & SRI.GEORGE MATHEW

¶35

THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶37

----------------------------------------

¶38

S.A.No.538 of 2002

¶39

----------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2010

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The second appeal is preferred against

¶42

the concurrent decision rendered in O.S.No.444/90 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Adoor, by the two courts below granting a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff/1^st respondent in the appeal.

¶43

Suit was one for partition and admittedly, the plaint property belonged to one Chacko Varghese. Plaintiff is one among the daughters of the above Chacko Varghese. Her claim for partition was resisted by the contesting defendants contending that the daughters who have been given away in marriage with 'Sthreedhana' are not entitled to claim any share in the property of their father.

¶44

S.A.No.538 of 2002

¶45

¶46

Provisions of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, which spelt out the rule of succession disinheriting the daughters given away in marriage on payment of 'Sthreedhana' from claiming shares in the family property was pressed into service to decline the suit claim of the plaintiff for separate allotment of share over the property of the father, who died intestate. Both the courts below, taking note that the Travancore Christian Succession Act, stood repealed with the coming into force of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, and the succession of the parties who are Christians is governed by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 repelled the contention raised by the defendants resisting the suit claim for partition. In that view of the matter, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff/1^st respondent. Challenge in this

¶47

S.A.No.538 of 2002

¶48

¶49

second appeal reiterating the contentions advanced before the courts below as indicated above, deserves to be taken note of only for its rejection.

¶50

Appeal is devoid of any merit and it is

¶51

dismissed.

¶52

Sd/(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)

JUDGE

sk/-

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge.

Rahelamma Chacko v. Geevarghese Annamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahelamma Chacko v. Geevarghese Annamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushkaran Vs C.K.Sharadha

Mathai Vs Leela Rajan

Keloth Kaitheri Edathil Udaya Sankar Vs K.K.Rohini Amma

Padmanabha Pillai and Others Vs Kummanam Elankavu Devaswom Bharana Samit

M.Hamza Vs Pathumma

K.Kunhabdulla Vs Thekeprat Abdul Rahiman