It is their further case that Mohammed Ilias had died two years prior to the birth of the plaintiff.
Later, Valliamma was renamed Souda Beebi.
The facts leading to this appeal are that a suit for partition and possession of 14/16th share in the Plaint Schedule A property and half the rights over Plaint Schedule B property was filed by the Respondent No.
Both Plaint properties belonged to her.
As numbered supra, the same position has been followed in the subsequent editions also, except that fasid has been described as irregular from the 10th edition onwards rather than as invalid.
2 to 7 are the children of Mohammed Idris.
He also claimed half the share in Schedule B property through inheritance after the demise of Zainam Beevi, as the same would have devolved upon the plaintiff, being the son of the predeceased son of Zainam Beevi, and Mohammed Idris, Defendant No.
It is the case of the defendants that Valliamma was number the legally wedded wife of Mohammed Ilias and that she was a Hindu by religion at the time of marriage.
She had number companyverted to Islam at the time of her marriage, and thus the plaintiff being the son of Valliamma, is number entitled to any share in the property of Mohammed Ilias.
Hence, the instant appeal was filed by the original defendants and the legal representatives of those among them who have since died.
1 in the suit, Mohammed Idris, is the brother of Mohammed Ilias, the father of the plaintiff, and Defendant Nos.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram dated 12.07.1994 passed in AS No.
Defendant No.
1, being the only surviving son of Zainam Beevi.
So also in 197, 199 and 204A of the 8th edition of Mulla, fasid is stated to mean invalid.
Valliamma was a Hindu at the time of her marriage with Mohammed Ilias.
The plaintiff claimed that he was the only son of Mohammed Ilias and on his death, he became entitled to 14/16 th of the share in Schedule A property.
In the 6th edition of Mulla, at 197, 199 and 200, fasid marriage is interpreted as invalid.
1 herein original plaintiff .
Out of the said wedlock, Shamsudeen the plaintiff was born.
Plaint Schedule A property was gifted to Mohammed Ilias, based on a gift deed executed by Zainam Beevi.
As mentioned supra, the trial Court decreed the suit and the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
Both Mohammed Ilias and Valliamma lived together as husband and wife at Thiruvananthapuram.
Subsequent to the death of Mohammed Ilias in 1947 AD, Valliamma Souda Beebi married Aliyarkunju.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. The judgment dated 05.09.2007 passed in S.A. No.
However, the High Court by the impugned judgment set aside the judgment passed by the first appellate Court and companyfirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
1 are the sons of Zainam Beevi, who expired in 1955.
Thereafter, Mohammed Ilias married Valliamma in 1120 M.E. as per the Malayalam Calendar, which companyresponds to 1945 AD in the Gregorian system .
Hence, the suit was filed.
693 of 1994 by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam is the subject matter of this appeal.
Both the plaintiffs father and Defendant No.
144/1984 by the Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram 165203 IST Reason dated 17.07.1989.
264/1989 and restored the judgment and decree passed in O.S. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2019.01.22 No.
