Kerala High Court
Gopalakrishna Pillai vs Satheedevi Amma on 10 April, 2026
R.S.A. No.126 of 2026 1 2026:KER:32009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
RSA NO. 126 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2025 IN A.S. NO.104
OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - III, MAVELIKKARA ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.07.2019 IN O.S. NO.48 OF 2010 OF
MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM
APPELLANT(S)/2ND APPELLANT/2ND DEFENDANT:
GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
KALAPURAYIL VEETIL, PUTHIYAVILA MURI,
KANDALLOOR VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690535
BY ADVS.
SMT.MEENA.A.
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
SMT.M.R.MINI
SHRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER
SMT.NIVEDHITHA PREM.V
SRI.ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA
SMT.MARIYA JOSEPH
SMT.AMEERA JOJO
SHRI.STEPHEN V THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF :
SATHEEDEVI AMMA
AGED 74 YEARS
W/O LATE VELAYUDHAN PILLAI,
KADUPARICHATHIL VEETIL,
MUTHUKULAM SOUTH MURI,
PATHIYOOR PANCHAYATH,
KEERIKKAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 690502
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
4.03.2026, THE COURT ON 10.4.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.S.A. No.126 of 2026 2 2026:KER:32009
EASWARAN S., J.
-----------------------------
R.S.A. No.126 of 2026
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026
JUDGMENT
The 2nd defendant in a suit (O.S. No.48 of 2010 before the Munsiff
Court, Kayamkulam) for partition has come up in the present appeal,
aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered against him.
2. The plaintiff is the wife of late Velayudhan Pillai. Velayudhan
Pillai and Balakrishna Pillai are siblings. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are
the wife and son of Balakrishna Pillai. The plaint schedule property
belonged to Narayanan Nair, who died intestate, and his legal heirs are
Raman Nair, Kunjukunjamma, Pappi Amma and Kunji Amma. The
plaintiff claimed that in the year 1114 ME, the co-owners of the plaint
schedule property had executed a partition deed No.3245 before the
Kayamkulam Sub Registrar Office. As per the partition deed, third
schedule property was given to Pappi Amma by reserving the co-
ownership right. Pappi Amma had three children Velayudhan Pillai,
Balakrishna Pillai and Kesavan Pillai. Among the sons, Kesavan Pillai died
early without legal heirs. Balakrishna Pillai married the 1st defendant, and
2nd defendant was born in the wedlock. Both Velayudhan Pillai and
R.S.A. No.126 of 2026 3 2026:KER:32009
Balakrishna Pillai predeceased Pappi Amma. The plaintiff instituted O.S.
No.358 of 2006 for the declaration of her right over the 1/3rd share of the
property and building therein. While the suit was pending, on 5.3.2009,
Pappi Amma died, and the suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh
suit. The defendants resisted the suit by contending that the property was
a self-acquired property and the plaintiff had not used any resources for
making improvements in the plaint schedule property. It was further
contended that, going by the partition deed No.3245 of the year 1114 ME,
only Pappi Amma had exclusive right over the plaint schedule property,
and she continued to be in possession of the plaint schedule property till
her death. Since Velayudhan Pillai, the son, predeceased Pappi Amma
without any issues, the plaintiff, being a widow, will not get any absolute
right. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A5 documents were marked,
and PW1 was examined. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was examined.
The suit was once decreed by the trial court, which was affirmed by the
Additional District Court-II, Mavelikkara. However, in R.S.A. No.1351 of
2013, this Court, by judgment rendered on 11.1.2019, remanded the
matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The remand was
necessitated because this Court felt that Ext.A1 partition deed was open
for interpretation either way, favouring both sides, and therefore, this
R.S.A. No.126 of 2026 4 2026:KER:32009
Court felt it expedient to grant an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove
otherwise. The matter went back, and the parties did not adduce any fresh
evidence except for DW1 being examined. The trial court, on appreciation
of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that there
is no material before it to conclude that the property in question is a self-
acquired property of late Pappi Amma and since the plaintiff’s husband
was born prior to 1.12.1976, when the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System
(Abolition) Act, 1975 came into existence, the husband had 1/2 right over
the property and hence on the death of Pappi Amma, her heirs were
entitled to inherit the property. Accordingly, the suit was decreed, and a
preliminary decree was passed. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred A.S.
No.104 of 2019 before the Additional District Court-III, Mavelikara. The
Additional District Court-III, Mavelikara, concurred with the findings of
the trial court and dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 24.11.2025.
Hence the present appeal.
3. Heard Smt. A. Meena, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that
the findings of the courts below are perverse inasmuch as the courts below
failed to note that there is no presumption in Marumakkathayam Law
R.S.A. No.126 of 2026 5 2026:KER:32009
that, when a female member is allotted a share in a partition, the same
constitutes her separate share and that her thavazhi cannot claim right by
birth. She further pointed out that in order to sustain the plea of a joint
family property, three essential aspects must be considered. a) community
interest, b) unity of possession and c) right by birth and survivorship. By
referring to the contents of Ext.A1 partition deed, the learned counsel
pointed out that, unlike the property being inherited by a Karanavathy
who forms a Thavazhi, in the present case, the property was allotted to the
share of late Pappi Amma in the family partition. Therefore, Pappi Amma
derived the property as a self-acquired property, and thus, the plaintiff
will not have any right over the same.
5. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel relied on the
decisions of this Court in Gangadevi v. Bhaskaran Nair [2025 KHC
170] and Gopalakrishanan Nair and Another v. Sethukutty
Amma and Others [2014 KHC 16].
6. On an anxious consideration of the submissions raised across the
Bar, this Court is of the view that the contentions do not merit
consideration. The interpretation placed on Ext.A1 partition deed by the
courts below cannot be termed as flawed. If, as a matter of fact, the
interpretation now sought to be placed by the appellant over the partition
R.S.A. No.126 of 2026 6 2026:KER:32009
deed was acceptable, then the appeal preferred by the defendants earlier,
as R.S.A. No.1351 of 2013, need not have been remanded. Therefore, it is
evident that the evidence adduced by the defendants was not sufficient to
hold otherwise, and hence the remand was necessitated. After remand,
except DW1, there is no other evidence to conclude that the property was
a self-acquired property at the hands of late Pappi Amma.
7. It is beyond doubt that Pappi Amma, along with her sons Late
Velayudhan Pillai and Late Balakrishana Pillai, constituted a Tavazhi. If,
as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the property at the
hands of Pappi Amma was lying exclusively without any benefits to the
members of the Thavazhi, it was incumbent upon him to have adduced
evidence to the said effect. Except the oral testimony of DW1, there is no
other evidence to prove the said contention.
8. It must be remembered that it is the appellant who resisted the
suit by contending that the property at the hands of Pappi Amma was a
self-acquired property and not a joint family property. It is indisputable
that sons of Pappi Amma were born prior to 1.12.1976, when the Kerala
Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 came into effect. That
being so, in the absence of any contra evidence, the courts below were
justified in holding that the property at the hands of Pappi Amma was a
R.S.A. No.126 of 2026 7 2026:KER:32009
joint family property and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the
same.
Viewed in the above perspective, the findings rendered by the
courts below cannot be said to be wrong. Resultantly, this Court is of the
view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the
appeal. The appeal fails, and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NS