The High Court heard a second appeal by a defendant-appellant held liable under a mother's will to pay Rs.3,000 to brother-appellant, a payable enforceable against the defendant despite a subsequent partition deed lacking an express stipulation to discharge such liability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/19TH MAGHA 1934
SA.No. 436 of 2000 (B)
---------------------AS.175/1991 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA OS.1781/1988 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT :-
NARAYANAN NAMBOODHIRI, AGED 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, S/O.NADUVATHU MANAKKAL, PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODHIRI, WEST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, WEST CHALAKUDY DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.NARAYANAN KUTTY SRI.S.KRISHNA PRASAD
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF :-
VASUDEVAN NAMBOODHIRI, AGED 54 YEARS, BUSINESS, S/O.NADUVATHU MANAKKAL, PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODHIRI, WEST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, WEST CHALAKUDY DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.SESHADRI
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
jvt
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
S.A. No.436 of 2000
Dated this the 8th day of February 2013
J U D G M E N T
The defendant in a suit for money is the appellant. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. As per the will executed by their mother, Arya Antharjanam, the defendant was made liable to pay Rs.3,000/- to the plaintiff. That amount was not paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed for recovery of that amount.
S.A. No.436 of 2000
-: 2 :-
be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The courts below did not accept the contention so raised by the defendant.
S.A. No.436 of 2000
will stood discharged. Therefore, I find that the courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled to get return of money as stipulated in the will executed by their mother – Arya Antharjanam. The contention that Ext.B1 has completely superseded even the liabilities created under the will is found unacceptable. No other point arises for consideration in this case.
Hence, this Second Appeal is disposed of without any order as to cost.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had deposited the amount before the trial court. Whether it would satisfy the entire decree amount or not is to be gone into by that court/ Execution Court.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Jvt
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a subsequent partition deed discharges pecuniary liabilities expressly created under a prior will when the partition deed lacks an express stipulation to discharge such liabilities.
Whether the liability of the defendant to pay Rs.3,000 to the plaintiff under the mother's will survives the subsequent partition.
Whether the appellate court should have considered the contention that the appellant had deposited the amount before the trial court.
Narayanan Namboodhiri
Vasudevan Namboodhiri
N.K.Balakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
