Dismissed

K.Omana Amma v. Sarasamma

Kerala HC6 Jul 2012RSA/875/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a civil dispute over property inheritance, the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant, claiming to be the sole heir, failed to substantiate her alleged marriage to the property owner, rendering her claim to cancel the settlement deed untenable.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.Omana Amma Vs Sarasamma — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2012/15TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

RSA.No. 875 of 2012 ()

¶6

.AS.179/2009 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOLLAM OS.7/2006 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF.:

¶8

K.OMANA AMMA, AGED 68 YEARS, D/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, RADHAKRISHNA BHAVAN, FROM ANDOORAZHIKATHU VEEDU, THEKKEVILA CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-690 016.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN

¶10

SRI.R.ANIL BABU SRI.AVANEESH KOYIKKARA SRI.TONY (INCHIPARAMBIL)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS.:

¶12

SARASAMMA (DIED)

¶13

MAHESH, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ANDOORAZHIKATHU VEEDU, THEKKEVILA CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-690 016.

¶14

RAMACHANDRAN NAIR K., AGED 72 YEARS

¶15

-DO- -DO-

¶16

MANOJ, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR K., -DO- -DO-

¶17

MANJUSHA, AGED 38 YEARS D/O.SARAMMA, -DO- -DO-

¶18

CHENCHUSHA, AGED 37 YEARS D/O.SARAMMA, -DO- -DO-

¶19

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶21

R.S.A. No.875 of 2012

¶22

Dated this the 6^th day of July, 2012.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Appellant/plaintiff sought to set aside a settlement deed executed by the 1^st respondent who claimed to be the sole legal heir of the late Ramachandran Pilla. That settlement deed (Ext.A1 is its copy) was executed in favour of the 2^nd respondent. Appellant claimed that she was married to one Balakrishna Pillai, he died on 04.09.1982 and following that, she married Ramachandran Pillai, the younger brother of Balakrishna Pillai on 01.10.1982. Ramachandran Pillai died on 07.02.1995. He left behind 3.24 Ares which he acquired as per sale deed No.3997 of 1982. Appellant claiming to be the sole legal heir of Ramachandran Pillai claims to have inherited that property, and urging that the 1^st respondent had no authority or right to execute Ext.A1, settlement deed, sought its cancellation.

¶25

1^st respondent/1^st defendant died pending the suit. Her legal representatives were impleaded as additional defendants 3 to 6. 2^nd respondent/2^nd defendant, the donee under Ext.A1, settlement deed contended that appellant had not married Ramachandran Pillai and that she had nothing to do with Ramachandran Pilla. It is the further contention of the 2^nd respondent that the deceased 1^st respondent/1^st defendant is the sole legal heir of the late Ramachandran Pillai and she was competent to execute Ext.A1, settlement deed in favour of 2^nd respondent/2^nd defendant.

¶26

¶27

RSA No.875/2012

¶28

Appellant gave evidence as PW1. She examined PW2 to prove her alleged marriage with Ramachandran Pilla. No documentary evidence was let in. Trial court rejected the claim of the appellant and non-suited her. The first appellate court has confirmed that. Hence the Second appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel contends that evidence of PWs 1 and 2 were not properly appreciated by the courts below.

¶30

Even as per the version of the appellant as PW1, it would appear that Ramachandran Pilla to whom she is said to be married after the death of her husband was aged only 10 years at the time of her marriage with Balakrishna Pilla. Even if it is assumed that it was after the appellant attained majority that she got married to Balakrishna Pillai, difference in age between the appellant and Ramachandran Pilla at the time of her marriage with Balakrishna Pillai should have been not less than 8 years. It is unlikely that Ramachandran Pillai married the appellant who was older to him by atleast 8 years. Moreover, her claim that her husband died on 06.09.1982 and she married his brother on 01.10.1982 appears to be quite improbable, apart from the Improbability arising from the age difference I have already stated. That apart, even when examined as PW1, appellant initially stated that Ramachandran Pillai was unmarried but, of course later stated that he married her.

¶31

¶32

RSA No.875/2012

¶33

The witness examined by the appellant as PW2 is a coconut climber. He has no knowledge about the alleged marriage between the appellant and the late Ramachandran Pillai. Admittedly no documentary evidence is let in. In the above circumstances, the trial and first appellate courts found against the marriage pleaded by the appellant.

¶34

In the absence of evidence to prove the alleged marriage between the appellant and the late Ramachandran Pilla, appellant could not lay hands on the property of the late Ramachandran Pilla and seek declaration/cancellation of Ext.A1, settlement deed.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel and gone through the judgments under challenge I am not satisfied that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal requiring its admission.

¶36

Second Appeal is dismissed.

¶37

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶38

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶39

cks

K.Omana Amma v. Sarasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.Omana Amma v. Sarasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramalingamoorthy Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Kunjan Vasanthakiumar Vs Baby Geetha

Chandy Vs K.O.Mathai

Mohammed Thameem Vs Peeru Mohammed Meera Sahib

Avara Haji Vs Velayudhan

Karthyayani Amma Vs Kamalavally