“CR” V. CHITAMBARESH & SATHISH NINAN, JJ. ======================== AFA.Nos.52 & 67 of 1992 ======================== Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2018 Judgment Chitambaresh, J. 1.A
dispute
arose
as
regards
the
apportionment
of
compensation for the extent of 115 sq. ft. of land acquired by the Government which led to LAR No.11/1981 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode. The property forms part of about 1 acre of land purchased by three brothers by name Choyi, Kelu and Damodaran under Ext.A1 sale deed dated 25.6.1930. Choyi was at that time employed as a Post Master in a post office, Kelu as a Jamedar in a telegraph office and Damodaran as a Teacher in a school explicit from the recitals. Choyi died on 2.12.1933
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
AFA52 & 67/1992
-: 2 :-
leaving behind his three sons and two daughters as his legal heirs who are impleaded as Claimant Nos.11 to 15 in the land acquisition reference. Kelu died on 28.4.1954 leaving behind his four daughters as his legal heirs who are impleaded as Claimant Nos.7 to 10 in the land acquisition reference. Damodaran died on 3.11.1954 leaving behind one daughter and a son who are impleaded as Claimant Nos.16 and 17 in the land acquisition reference answered by the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It appears that Claimant Nos.11, 12 and 17 who are the two sons of Choyi and one son of Damodaran subsequently executed Ext.A6 partition deed dated 4.10.1979 amongst themselves. The land of extent 115 sq. ft. which is the subject matter of the acquisition forms part of the property allotted to Claimant No.12 in Ext.A6 partition deed.
2.The Court of the Subordinate Judge by judgment dated 29.6.1985 held that the compensation amount is to be
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
AFA52 & 67/1992
-: 3 :-
divided into three equal shares one of which will go to Claimant Nos.7 to 10 exclusively. This was challenged by Claimant No.12 in LAA.No.200/1985 contending that he alone is entitled to the compensation for land acquisition on the strength of Ext.A6 partition deed. The learned single Judge has accepted this plea holding that the property belongs to the joint family of the three brothers over which the sons alone have right as co-parceners.
The learned
single Judge has allowed LAA.No.200/1985 by the impugned judgment which is challenged by Claimant Nos.8 to 10 and the legal heirs of Claimant No.7. It is reported that Claimant No.13 died on 14.11.1991 only after the hearing of LAA.No.200/1985 on 13.11.1991 and hence there could be no abatement of the appeal. No exception can also be taken to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeals then in view of the authoritative pronouncement in Sharada Devi v. State of Bihar [(2002) 3 SCC 705].
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
AFA52 & 67/1992
-: 4 :-
3.We heard the following counsel:
i. K. Mohanakannan for legal heirs of Claimant No.7. ii. M.A.Zohra for Claimant Nos.8 to 10. iii.T.Krishnanunni(Sr.) E. Narayanan for Claimant No.11. iv.K.Jayesh Mohankumar for Claimant No.12. v. Millu Dandapani for Claimant No.13. vi.C.Khalid for Claimant No.15.
4.There is neither pleading nor any proof that the income from an ancestral property formed the nuclei with the aid of which the three brothers - Choyi, Kelu and Damodaran - acquired the property under Ext.A1 sale deed. There was no joint tenancy or family business or any other tharwad property to indicate that the three brothers were part of a joint Hindu family as is contended. The recitals in the deed on the other hand point out that the three brothers who are the assignees
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
AFA52 & 67/1992
-: 5 :-
had independent income from different avocations in different stations. Their separate salary was obviously the source for sale consideration in Ext.A1 sale deed and they pooled their money to buy a single plot of land instead of three different property. It necessarily follows that the property so purchased under Ext.A1 sale deed is the self acquisition of the three brothers with independent effort and does not partake the character of joint family property. There is no question of blending as nobody has a case that the self acquisition of the three brothers were thrown into a common hotchpot in order to infer that the property acquired
the
character
of
joint
family
property.
The
presumption that the family continues to be joint until the contrary is proved stands rebutted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The mere fact that anyone of the brothers might have constructed a residential house therein is insufficient to uphold any community of interest or jointness as is attempted to be projected.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
AFA52 & 67/1992
-: 6 :-
5.Reliance was placed on Ext.A6 partition deed to contend that other property have also been dealt with thereunder indicative of the fact that the parties treated the same as joint family property. But it should be borne in mind that only Claimant Nos.11, 12 and 17 are parties to Ext.A6 partition deed and the other Claimants being not executants are
not
bound
by
the
same.
Any
recital
could
be
incorporated in a subsequent partition deed executed by a few of the legal heirs in order to defeat the legitimate claim of the other legal heirs of the brothers. The decision in Kelukutty and others v. Mammad and others [1972 KLT 725(SC)] is distinguishable on facts as is evident from the following observations therein:
“From these decisions, it is clear that Thiyyas of former Calicut Taluk were governed by the customary law known as Makkathayam. Further as
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
AFA52 & 67/1992
-: 7 :-
per the Makkathayam rule of inheritance, an undivided
brother
of
a
deceased
person
succeeded to the self acquired property of the deceased in preference to the wife and daughter of the deceased. If that is so, the daughter's son who comes after them under the general Hindu law cannot have a superior claim unless a custom to that effect is pleaded and proved.” (emphasis supplied)
The plea in essence is that the brothers of Kelu succeeded to the estate in preference to his daughters even if it is his self acquired property since the parties are Thiyyas of former Calicut Taluk. The above decision may have relevance only if Kelu remained as an undivided brother of the thavazhi which had tharwad property whereas the indications are otherwise that Kelu was a divided brother. We reiterate that there was no community of interest or joint status between Kelu and his brothers and therefore the share of Kelu should devolve on his daughters who are Claimant Nos.7 to 10.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
AFA52 & 67/1992
-: 8 :-
6.We set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and declare the share of the parties over the compensation amount as follows:
i. Claimant Nos.7 to 10 = 1/3rd share. ii. Claimant Nos.11 to 15 = 1/3rd share. iii.Claimant Nos.16 & 17 = 1/3rd share.
The Appeals against First Appeal are allowed. No costs.
Jun 13, 2016 - Areas where collaboration would mutually benefit GPs/FPs and the EMA .... become essential not only in the post-marketing phase, where their .... communication channels (email groups; newsletters; bulletins and journals).
Isabel Rey Clemente Henry Mejia. WASLI Representative WFD Regional Director of South America. For Latin America and the Caribbean. JOAQUIN HERNANDEZ JOSÃ LUIS BRIEVA. FENASCOL Board Legal Representative ANISCOL. Page 2 of 2. JOINT STATEMENT firmado.
provided keen insight on various aspects of the condi- tion, most were limited by their confined scope ..... recovery period. Although these studies provide a theo-.
Page 1 of 1. File: Joint venture pdf. Download now. Click here if your download doesn't start automatically. Page 1 of 1. joint venture pdf. joint venture pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu. Displaying joint venture pdf. Page 1 of 1.
Material is freely available via websites and Facebook pages. ⢠Local Men's Sheds networks have been established to share experience and provide mutual ...
21. 8.5 Sustainability. 28. 9. 10. So what is the Learning? Recommendations. 31. 32. Appendix ..... Material is freely available via websites and Facebook pages. ... social media, making things to raise funds, approaching local organisations for.
pX(x) = X. i. (x, yi),. which is the marginal pmf of X. For the above example, we have. pX(0) = pX(1) = 0.5. 1.2 Jointly Continuous Random Variables. Joint PDF ...
Page 1 of 4. Page 1 of 4. Page 2 of 4. Page 2 of 4. Page 3 of 4. Page 3 of 4. Page 4 of 4. Page 4 of 4. S-JOINT & GCB.pdf. S-JOINT & GCB.pdf. Open. Extract.
applicable statutes and their respective expressed and implied powers hereby. established to operate a Community Education Program. a) The term Community ...
MARGARITAS & MORE. Squeezed, pressed and house-made. LINCOLN PARK. 1969 N. Halsted. tacojoint.com. RIVER NORTH. 158 W. Ontario. traditional red michelada / 7. Modelo Especial, lime, house-made sangrita, chile piquin rim. mango & chamoy michelada / 8.
tax returns. 39% of business tax returns. 11% of business tax returns .... m. Hungary. Norway. Ireland. Denmark. Au stra lia. Sweden. Israel. Canada. Hon g. Kon.
Name: Family Picture Test. Circle the correct word. 10 pets baby an baby grandpa grandpa brother pets grandma parents. ALAA daddy sister family grandma baby mummy. Sister mummy daddy brother family daddy family grandpa / grandma baby sister brother p
Dec 8, 2004 - complemented by similar efforts elsewhere in the network for the ... perfect equality of shares maximises social surplus over all share vectors.
Page 1 of 8. Page 1 of 8. Document Number: BIMSTEC/MM/15/2017/05. Distribution: Restricted. Date: 11 August 2017. SECRETARIAT. BAY OF BENGAL INITIATIVE FOR MULTI-SECTORAL. TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COOPERATION. DHAKA. JOINT STATEMENT OF THE FIFTEENTH BI
JOINT RATE-INTELLIGIBILITY-COMPLEXITY OPTIMIZATION OF AN H.264 VIDEO. ENCODER FOR ... §Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering,. University of ... cities in the United States, ultimately requiring such a system to operate at ...