Supreme Court rules on property rights: Daughters entitled, adverse possession, marriage customs crucial

The Supreme Court held that the suit schedule properties were Stridhan, entitling Valli's daughters to exclusive rights. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 10 to 17 were denied partition as they lost their rights through adverse possession and ouster by defendant Nos. 1 to 9. The absence of pleading regarding marriage customs affected their claim. The partition deed of 1953 was deemed binding, and plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 were not entitled to a share. The Supreme Court allowed defendant Nos. 1 to 9's appeal, overturning the High Court's decision and reinstating the Trial Court's judgment denying relief to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 10 to 17.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit schedule properties of Valli are Stridhan properties.
2. Whether the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 10 to 17 are entitled to partition of the suit schedule properties.
3. Whether the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 10 to 17 have lost their right by adverse possession and ouster by defendant Nos. 1 to 9.
4. Whether the absence of averments in the plaint regarding custom followed in the marriage of Valli's daughters affects their rights to the suit schedule properties.
5. Whether the partition deed (Ex.-B1) in 1953 is binding.
6. Whether plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are entitled to their share in the suit properties.
7. What relief the parties are entitled to.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Stridhan Properties:
The Supreme Court analyzed whether the suit schedule properties of Valli are Stridhan properties. It was determined that the properties are indeed Stridhan, as per Ex.-A1 (Panayam Theeradharam) and the commentary by N.R. Raghavachariyar on Hindu Law. The High Court did not record a positive finding that the Stridhan properties of Valli exclusively belonged to her daughters. However, it was established that the properties were Stridhan, which generally entitled her daughters to exclusive rights over them.

2. Entitlement to Partition:
The plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 10 to 17 claimed entitlement to partition of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court dismissed their claim, holding that they were not entitled to partition. The High Court reversed this, directing the division of the properties. However, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 10 to 17 had been excluded from possession for over 50 years, thus losing their rights by adverse possession and ouster by defendant Nos. 1 to 9. The High Court's finding was erroneous, and the Trial Court's decision was upheld.

3. Adverse Possession and Ouster:
The Supreme Court concluded that the continuous possession of the suit schedule properties by defendant Nos. 1 to 9 for over 50 years constituted adverse possession and ouster of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 10 to 17. This was supported by legal precedents, including Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and Sunder Das v. Gajananrao, which clarified the principles of adverse possession.

4. Custom and Marriage:
The plaintiffs did not plead the custom regarding the marriage of Valli's daughters. The High Court erred in not addressing this fact. The defendants' claim that the daughters were given Streedhana at marriage and thus not entitled to a share was not supported by evidence. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 10 to 17 failed to establish necessary aspects for partition, as they were ousted from possession.

5. Partition Deed (Ex.-B1):
The partition deed of 1953 between Kunhan and Ayyappan was binding. The continuous possession by their descendants (defendant Nos. 1 to 9) further solidified their claim. The High Court's reversal of the Trial Court's findings on this issue was incorrect.

6. Entitlement of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4:
Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4, being the legal representatives of deceased Apputty, were not entitled to a share in the suit properties. The properties were Stridhan, and after Valli's death, they came into the possession of her sons, Kunhan and Ayyappan, as per the partition deed.

7. Relief:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of defendant Nos. 1 to 9, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's judgment. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 10 to 17 were not entitled to the relief sought.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the suit schedule properties were Stridhan, and the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 10 to 17 lost their rights due to adverse possession and ouster by defendant Nos. 1 to 9. The High Court's judgment was reversed, and the Trial Court's decision was reinstated.

---