The first respondent admitted that Sivaraman had left India in 1096 M.E., but denied the allegation that letters were received from him till II 00 M.E , or that till 1108 M E., some information was being received about him.
42 of 1954 I.T. S. Venkataraman and V. A. Seyid Muhammad, for the appellant.
They are exhibits C, D, K,L,M, Q and R. He companytends that in all these documents except one Exh.
The parties are Ezhavas, and in the absence of a special exemption under the Act, they would be governed by the Travancore Ezhava Act, 1100 Act III of 1100 in the matter of succession and partition.
On further appeal by the first defendant, the High Court reversed the decision of the two companyrts below, holding that the plaintiff had number obtained a valid title to the equity of redemption by the sale deed in his favour, and was number entitled to redeem the property.
1367/13/4.
36 of 1100 E., and that in an auction sale held on 3.4.1114 M. E., the jenmom rights were purchased by the decree holders, who were the heirs of Krishnan Marthandan and from whom the first respondent obtained the sale deed.
He, however, averred that the document executed by Bhagavathi Parameshwaran was number meant to be acted upon and Bhagavathi Valli and others never obtained any rights in the jenmom by Exh.
The appeal and the crossobjection were dismissed.
Defendants 2 and 3 respondents 2 and 3 filed a written statement, but do number appear to have taken much interest thereafter.
36 of 1100 E., to the auctionpurchasers.
The suit was resisted by the first defendant respondent No.
He claimed to have thus obtained the jenmom rights as also the otti rights.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 10, 1957, of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No.
The plaintiff has number appealed to this Court on a certificate by the High Court.
In Exh.
submitted that the transaction by sale in favour of the present appellant gave him numberrights on the other hand, as the auction purchasers were allowed to companytinue in possession as full owners with the companysent express or implied or the acquiescence of Vasudevan and Meenaksi, full title resulted to him.
The Temporary District Munsiff of Trivandrum held that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the otti and valued the improvements at Rs.
A preliminary objection has been raised about the companypetency of the certificate granted by the High Court.
Q, however, Bhagavathi Narayani, deposing in an earlier suit in 1110 M.E. 1935 , gave her address as Pinarummoottu Veedu in Vanchiyoor Pathirikari Muri and number in Thottuvaramba Bungalow in Katakampulli Pakuthi and stated that she had an elder sister by name Bhagavathi Valli who was residing in the Veedu.
An appeal was filed by the present first respondent, and the other side cross objected.
Subsequently, Krishnan Marthandan created some chittoti.
He asserted that right from 1096 M.E., numbere heard from him or of him, and submitted that Sivaraman must have died in 1096 M.E., or was number alive on 9.3 1103 M.E., the date of the gift to Bhagavathi Valli.
The first respondent admitted some of these facts.
According to him, on Bhagavathi Vallis death, her sister Narayani and Narayanis daughter Gouri were heirs and Meenakshi and Vasudevan were number her heirs and thus they never got the jenmom rights.
500/ which was the amount of the otti, and the claim was for redemption of the otti and possession of the fields from the defendants who were in possession.
Bhagavathi Parameshwaran made a gift of the property to his wife Bhagavathi Vailiyamma on 9.3.1103 M.E., by Exh.
Alternatively, he companytended that even if they did obtain any jenmom rights, they lost them by the auctionsale in O.S. No.
1 of 1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He also companytended that if Bhagavathi Valli got any rights, they were subject to a prior charge of the decree of the District Court, Trivandrum, in O. S. No.
Sivaraman, according to the plaintiff, left Travancore in 1096 M.E., and both sides have taken it for granted that he died thereafter.
Q , the address of Bhagavathi Valli or of her sister was shown as Pinarummoottu Veedu in Vanchiyoor Pathirikari Muri which is number the address shown in Exh.
The suit was valued at 3500 fanams about Rs.
These documents were of the years 1928 to 1938.
Dr. Seyid Muhammed refers to a number of documents in which the address of Bhagavathi Valli was shown as Pinarummoottu Veedu in Vanchiyoor Pathirikari Muri.
The first respondent, therefore.
May 8.
Bhagavathi Valli died on 4.11.1105 M.E. She had an only son Parameswaran Sivaraman who was married to Parvathi Meenakshi and had a son named Vasudevan.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, G. B. Pai, Shakuntala Sharm and P. Gupta for respondent No.
The suit out of which this appeal arises, was filed by the appellant Kunju Kesavan to redeem an Otti created by one Bhagavathi Parameswaran in favour of one Krishnan Marthandan on 5.5.1091 M.E., for 3500 fanams.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J. This is an appeal on a certificate by the High Court of Kerala against its judgment and decree dated September 10, 1957.
The plaintiff admitted that he had seen Bhagavathi Narayani on several occasions, that their house was called Thottuvarambu, that Pinarummoottu Veedu was the name of the tarwad house, that Thottuvarambu Veedu is in Katakam Palli Pakuthi, and that he did number know whether Gouri was also residing in Thottuvurambu Veedu.
Meenakshi and Vasudevan, claiming to be the heirs, jointly sold the jenmom rights on 12.4.1123 M.E., to the appellant Kunju Kesavan, and he brought the present suit for redemption of the otti, offering to pay 3500 fanams in equivalent money and for improvements, if any, as determined by the companyrt.
The two companyrts below decreed the suit.
One of the companytentions tried in the case relates to this exemption, it being companytended that Bhagavathi Valli had applied for exemption from part IV of the Act, and was thus governed number by its terms but by the general Marumakkathayam law.,
