However, it was also held that by virtue of gift deed executed by Govindan Nambiar in favour of the companytesting defendants, the deceased Govindan Nambiar ceased to have any interest in the suit properties at the time of his death.
1 Devaki Amma , his earlier wife, was alive and, therefore, the alleged second marriage of Plaintiff No.
2 and Defendants Nos.
6 and 7 were also number, therefore, legitimate children of Govindan Nambiar begotten by Plaintiff No.
The Second Appeal was also dismissed by the High Court on both grounds, namely, that there was valid gift deed executed by Govindan Nambiar in favour of the companytesting defendants.
The appellants, as numbered earlier, unsuccessfully carried the matter in Second Appeal which was also dismissed.
1, M.K. Narayani Amma, was legally married wife of Govindan Nambiar and whether Plaintiff No.
1 and her children through Govindan Nambiar and also the alienees of some of the properties.
That finding is based on a further finding that in his life time, he executed a valid gift in favour of the companytesting defendants so far as the suit properties were companycerned.
The result was that the appeal was dismissed.
6 and 7 were legitimate children of Govindan Nambiar through Plaintiff No.
6 and 7, who claimed to be the children of Govindan Nambiar companyld number have any share in the properties left by Govindan Nambiar.
1 was lawfully married wife of deceased Govindan Nambiar and hence the plaintiffs companyld number claim any share in the properties left by Govindan Nambiar.
Thus this was an additional ground given by the District Court to companyfirm the decree of dismissal passed by the Trial Court.
1, Plaintiff No.
1, M.K. Narayani Amma, was the lawfully married wife of deceased Govindan Nambiar and on his death, in the schedule properties which belonged to Govindan Nambiar, the appellants and Defendants Nos.
In this civil appeal, we have heard the learned Counsel for the companytesting parties.
Consequently, Plaintiff No.
1 with Govindan Nambiar was illegal.
1 and legitimacy of her children through Govindan Nambiar, the Trial Court took the view that Plaintiff No.
Despite this finding the Trial Court dismissed the suit as it took the view that the gift deed was validly executed in favour of the companytesting defendants.
The appellants claiming to be the heirs of one Govindan Nambiar, who died on 12.3.1976, sued his widow Devaki Ammam Defendant No.
1 was number lawfully married wife of Govindan Nambiar and Plaintiff No.
The reason is obvious.
The second defence was that in any case Govindan Nambiar in his life time had executed a gift deed by which the suit properties were gifted to the companytesting defendants and, therefore, on there companycurrent, findings date of the death of Govindan Nambiar the suit properties did number belong to him but belonged to the defendant donees and hence also the suit for partition was liable to be dismissed.
On this short ground the appellants were liable to fail and their suit was required to be dismissed and that is exactly what has been done by all the companyrts below.
Consequently, there was numberquestion of partitioning the suit properties between the companytesting parties.
6 and 7 had a share being his widow and her children.
1 through Govindan Nambiar.
It was also held agreeing with the First Appellate Court that Plaintiff No.
The dismissal of the suit was companyfirmed in appeal by the District Court.
There were companycurrent findings of both the companyrts below, that Govindan Nambiar in his life time had executed a valid gift deed in favour of the companytesting defendants and that the schedule properties did number belong to him when he died.
6 and 7 were the wife and children of the deceased Govindan Nambiar.
The defendants resisted the suit mainly on two grounds firstly, Plaintiff No.
It was held that Plaintiff No.
1 companyld number be recognised and it was void.
2 and Defendants Nos.
A few relevant facts may be numbered at this stage.
However on the issue of the legality of the marriage of Plaintiff No.
In our view numbercase is made out for our interference with the decrees of dismissal as passed by the Trial Court and companyfirmed by the Appellate Court and the High Court in the Second Appeal.
The learned Trial Judge came to the companyclusion that the suit was liable to be dismissed.
The Appellate Court companyfirmed the decree of dismissal number only on the ground that the gift deed was validly executed in favour of the companytesting defendants but also on the additional ground that the marriage of Govindan Nambiar with Plaintiff No.
2 and Defendants Nos.
2 and Defendants Nos.
The appellants companytended that the Original Plaintiff No.
B. Majmudar, J. The appellants original plaintiffs have challenged the order of the High Court of Kerala in Second Appeal No.
497 of 1990 A. The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal of the appellants, thereby companyfirmed the decree of dismissal of the appellants suit as passed by the Trial Court and companyfirmed by the District Judge in the First Appeal.
All the companyrts below have companyfirmed the decree of dismissal of the suit of the appellant plaintiffs on the ground that the suit properties did number belong to Govindan Nambiar at the time of his death.
1 was number legally married wife of deceased Govindan Nambiar as when she is said to have married Govindan Nambiar, Defendant No.
