Skip to content


Mathoo Phillip Vs. Mathoo Ouseph - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 306 of 1960
Judge
Reported inAIR1965Ker220
ActsTravancore Chritian Succession Act
AppellantMathoo Phillip
RespondentMathoo Ouseph
Appellant Advocate M. Ramanandha Pillai, Adv.
Respondent Advocate George Vadakkel, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredAnd Iyer Hariharasubramonia Iyer v. Mathu Thrasia
Excerpt:
- .....and the daughter being mariam, from whom the appellant purchased her alleged right in the property left by eley. after the death of eley in 1897 mathai married, again and by the second wife he had three children, one of whom being the appellant.2. the appellant filed the suit (or partition and separate possession of mariam's share in the property left by her mother, eley. it has come out in the evidence that mariam was given stridhanam at the time of her marriage in 1908. the question for consideration is whether mariam still retained a right tor share in the property left by her mother. one other fact to be noticed is that there was a partition among. mathai and his brothers in 1092, i.e., after the marriage of mariam, and ex. i evidences that partition. therein it is recited that the.....
Judgment:

T.C. Raghavan, J.

1. A Syrian Christian (Nazarani Christian) by name Mathai married his first wife, Eley, by whom two children were born a son and a daughter, the son being the respondent and the daughter being Mariam, from whom the appellant purchased her alleged right in the property left by Eley. After the death of Eley in 1897 Mathai married, again and by the second wife he had three children, one of whom being the appellant.

2. The appellant filed the suit (or partition and separate possession of Mariam's share in the property left by her mother, Eley. It has come out in the evidence that Mariam was given stridhanam at the time of her marriage in 1908. The question for consideration is whether Mariam still retained a right tor share in the property left by her mother. One other fact to be noticed is that there was a partition among. Mathai and his brothers in 1092, i.e., after the marriage of Mariam, and Ex. I evidences that partition. Therein it is recited that the property left by Eley belonged to her son, the respondent. It may also be noted that though Mariam was then alive, she was not supposed to have any share in this property.

3. Under the Travancore Christian Succession Act, admittedly, if a daughter is given stridhanam, she is not entitled to any further right in the property left by her father or mother. It is contended by the appellant's learned counsel that the position was probably different prior to the Christian Succession Act. That contention does not appear to have any warrant in the light of the Pull Bench decision in, And Iyer Hariharasubramonia Iyer v. Mathu Thrasia, 13 Trav LJ 354 (FB). In paragraph 16 of that judgment the learned Judges have considered several earlier decisions, which indubitably indicate that prior to the Christian Succession Act the daughter was not entitled to any share in the properties of the father or the mother if a son was alive. It is then contended that the right the daughter loses on taking stridhanam is the right in the property of the rather; and since the property in this case belonged to the mother who predeceased the father, the appellant is entitled to her share in the mother's property. In view of the Full Bench decision already referred to, this contention also has no forco. I may also add that the recital in Ex. I indicates the law prevailing at the time of the death of Eley, i.e., prior to the Christian Succession Act.

4. Thus the second appeal has very little substance and the same is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //