for relinquishment of share – circumstance can be taken in to considered in the absence of specific relinquishment deed

for relinquishment of share – circumstance can be taken in to considered in the absence of specific relinquishment deed

It is submitted that the High Court has materially erred in not accepting the same on the ground that there is no Deed of 9 Relinquishment executed by Triza Kalyani John @ A.S. Meenakshi and as such the Deed of Relinquishment is required to be registered.

 we are of the view that the High Court has completely erred in holding that the plaintiffs would   have   1/4th  share   in   the   suit   property   being  the   heirs   of deceased Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi –the daughter of John D.Abraham.  It was the specific case on behalf of defendant nos. 1 & 2that at the time of marriage of Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi withoriginal plaintiff no.1, she converted to Hinduism and her name was changed to A.S. Meenakshi.  

It was the specific case on behalf of 

defendant nos. 1 & 2 that at the relevant time when the said Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi had married to original plaintiff no.1 and converted to Hinduism, there was opposition.  

However, despite the same,   the   said   Triza   Kalyani   John   @  Meenakshi   converted   to Hinduism and married to original plaintiff no.1 and she was paid Rs.50,000/­ and some gold ornaments for relinquishing her right, if any, in the suit property belonging to John D. Abraham.   

The trial Court believed the case on behalf of defendant nos. 1 & 2, both on  appreciation of evidence as well as on conduct of Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi.  The trial Court also dismissed the suit on the ground of   limitation.     

It  is   to  be  noted  that   the  John   D.  Abraham  died intestate in the year 1964. Triza Kalyani John, the eldest daughter ofJohn D. Abraham married to original plaintiff no.1 in the year 1979.She died in the year 1986.  During her life time, she never claimed any   share/partition   in   the   suit   property   belonging   to   John   D. Abraham.  Only after the death of Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi, the   plaintiffs   claiming   to   be   the   heirs   of   Triza   Kalyani   John   @ Meenakshi instituted the suit for partition contending, inter alia, that Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi had 1/3rd share in the suit property belonging   to   John   D.   Abraham,   who   died   intestate.     Therefore, considering the aforesaid conduct on the part of Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi   during   her   life   time,   the   learned   trial   Court   rightly accepted the defence on behalf of original defendant nos. 1 & 2 that the said Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi was paid Rs.50,000/­ and some  gold   ornaments   at   the   time   of   her   marriage   with   original plaintiff   no.1   and   the   said   Triza   Kalyani   John   @   Meenakshi relinquished her share in the suit property. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7207­7208/2008

Pharez John Abraham (Dead) By Lrs. …Appellants

Versus

Arul Jothi Sivasubramaniam K. & others …Respondents