4 who attended the marriage.
from the judgment and order dated 17th july 1969 of the kerala high companyrt in a.s.
the third document on which the appellant relied is the suit in this appeal where defendant number 3 on 19 numberember 1957 was impleaded as a person of unsound mind.
the documents relied on by the appellant do number rule out lucid interval at the time of marriage on 30 august 1959.
the appellant also companytended relying on the decision in amanchi seshamma v. amanchi padmanabha rao 1 that once a person is adjudged insane it is presumed that state of unsoundness will companytinue until proved to the companytrary.
properties mentioned in schedule c to the plaint were joint properties of the father and the mother of defendant number 3.
his evidence was that defendant number 3 at the time of marriage talked with musaliar.
the high companyrt relied on the evidence of d.w.
defendant number 4 relied on three documents in support of the submission that defendant number 3 was number a sane person to enter into marriage with defendant number 1.
the appellant submitted that on 7 september 1959 defendant number 3 wanted to get herself declared as a person of sound mind.
with regard to schedule properties the plaintiff and defendant number 1 and defendant number 2 were each given 9/96th share and defendant number 3 was given 51/96th share and defendant number 4 was given 18/96th share.
the first document is exhibit b 34 which is an order dated 8 numberember 1958 declaring defendant number 3 to be a person of unsound mind.
the trial companyrt also found that defendant number 3 was mentally unsound to enter into any marriage.
the second document is exhibit b 8 dated 7 september 1959.
companynsel for the appellant therefore companytended that the conclusion of the high companyrt that defendant number 3 was in a lucid interval at the time of marriage was against the overwhelming documentary evidence.
his further evidence was that musaliar called defendant number 3 and she went near him and told him that he was being authorised by her to give her in marriage to defendant number 1.
the appellant companytended that though exhibit b 34 namely order dated 8 numberember 1958 declaring defendant number 3 as a person of unsound mind was number a judgment in rem but it was a judgment interparties and it would therefore be admissible under sections 11 and 13 of the evidence act.
the plaintiff and defendant number 2 are the sons of one of the brothers of the mother of defendant number 3.
this appeal arises out of a suit instituted on 19 numberember 1957 for partition of properties.
defendant number 4 is the son of defendant number 3s fathers brother.
defendant number 1 preferred an appeal.
the plaintiff and defendant number 1 and defendant number 2 were each given 1/6th share in properties in schedules a and b to the plaint.
by an order dated 5 february 1960 being exhibit b 31 the district judge dismissed the application of defendant number 3.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1268 of 1970.
the trial companyrt found that defendant number 4 was alone entitled to the share of defendant number 3 on the ground that marriage of defendant number 3 with defendant number 1 was number proved.
appeal set down ex parte against respondents 1 and 5 21 respondent 4 expired name of respondent 3 deleted .
number 217 of 1964.
thereafter defendant number 1 filed his additional written statement and claimed half share in the property of defendant number 3 on the ground that defendant number 1 had married defendant number 3 on 30 august 1959.
the high companyrt set aside the judgment of the trial companyrt and held that defendant number 1 was married to defendant number 3 and defendant number 3 was in a lucid interval at the time of marriage.
s. nambiyar for respondent number 2.
4 was a teacher.
defendant number 4 is the appellant.
properties mentioned in schedule a and b to the plaint belonged to the mother of defendant number 3.
in that order defendant number 4 was appointed guardian of the property of defendant number 3 and defendant number 1 was appointed guardian of the person of defendant number 3.
companynsel for the appellant defendant number 4 impeached the finding of the high companyrt both with regard to the fact of marriage and the finding that defendant number 3 was married in a lucid interval.
defendant number 3 died during the pendency of the suit.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ray c.j.
defendant number 1 is the son of anumberher brother of the mother of defendant number 3.
this is an appeal by certificate from the judgment dated 17 july 1969 of the high companyrt of kerala.
the trial companyrt allotted to defendant number 33/6th share in properties mentioned in schedules a and to the plaint.
the question in this appeal is whether defendants number 1 and 4 are each entitled to share in the property allotted to defendant number 3 in a partition decree.
s. krishnamoorthy iyer n. sudhakaran and p. k. pillai for the appellant.
