PATTAKKAL KUNHIKOYA (DEAD) BY LRS. versus THOOPIKAL KOYA AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 15-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
-r
PATTAKKAL KUNHIKOYA (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
THOOPIKAL KOY A AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 15, 1999 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Customary law: Laccadive Minicoy and Amindivi Islands-Pandambeli, 
A 
B 
an ancient tarward became extinct in I 906-Pattakkal and Thoopikal, 
branches of Pandambeli-Kandangalam, sub-branch of Thoopikal became 
extinct in 1958-Plaintiff, a member of Pattakkal claimed properties of C 
Kandangalam by rights of reversion-Suit filed by appellant before Tehsi/dar 
for recovery dismissed-Appeal also dismissed-On appeal, High Court 
remanded ·the case to Sub-Court for fresh disposal-Sub-Court disallowed 
plaintiff's claim on the ground that Kandangalam was a sub-branch of 
Thoopikal and properties should go to Thoopikal-Appeal io High Court D 
dismissed-On appeal, Held: On extinction of Pandambeli properties were 
divided amongst the three branches-As Pattakkal neither claimed nor 
objected at that time, therefore, could not claim later-No evidence as to the 
communality of interest of the Patta~l of Andhrot-No evidence as to the 
continuation of relationship at Amini between Pattakkal and Pandambeli-
No proof of Pattakkal being a branch of Pandambeli-Plaintiff not entitled E 
to the suit property. 
Constitution of India, I 950 : Article 136-Concurrent findings of facts 
by the courts be/ow-Appellant's effort to get the entire evidence re-
appreciated under appeal by special leave-Held, normally Supreme Court F 
does not re-appreciate evidence for the purpose of examining whether finding 
of facts arrived at by the Courts below is correct or not-Re-appreciation of 
facts allowed only in cases of serious miscarriage of justice. 
The plaintiff-appellant herein, a member of the Pattakkal tarwad in 
Lakshdweep Island, filed a suit before the Tahsildar claiming his entitlement G 
to the properties of Kandangalam tarwad on the extinction of the said tarwad 
in 1958 and prayed for recovery of possession. The plaintiff asserted that 
Pattakkal tarwad was an undivided branch of Pandambeli tarwad of which 
Kandangalam was another branch and as such on the extinction of 
Kandangalam tarwad, Pattakkal tarwad of which the plaintiff is a member is H 
371 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
. A the sole surviving undivided unit of the original Pandambeli tarwad and is 
thus entitled to succeed to all the properties and the assets of Kandangalam 
by rights of reversion. Pandambeli is an ancient tarwad in Amindivi Island 
and admittedly became extinct in 1906. A female member of Pandambeli had 
gone to Androth earlier and one of her daughters Beeashabi returned to 
B Amindivi with her. children in about 1853 or 1859 under very strained 
situation when damage was caused in Androth due to floods and the Karnavan 
of Pandambeli gave them some of the tarwad properties. It is Beeashabi through 
whom the plaintiff descended lineage. The plaintiff contended that tbe tarwad 
properties were given to Beeashabi towards their share whereas the defendant 
contended that the properties were given to them as an act of charity only. 
C The said suit was dismissed and even an appeal against the said decision was 
also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Further appeal to the High Court 
was allowed by setting aside the order of the Tahsildar. However, the matter 
was remitted to the Sub-Court, Kavaratti for fresh disposal on merits. The 
Sub-Court held that Pandambeli, the parent tarwad ofKandangalam was not 
in existence even after 1906 and hence there was no question of the properties 
D of Kandangalam tarwad being reverted to Pandambeli and such the plaintiff 
cannot lay any claim to those properties. It was also found that Kandangalam 
was a sub-branch ofThoopikal branch of Pandambeli tarwad and it alone was 
entitled to the properties on the principle that the properties of the extinct 
branch must go the tarwad from which it separated itself. It was also concluded 
E that the plaintiff had not been able· to establish that Pattakkal is collateral 
undivided branch of Pandambeli having any interest in the properties of 
Kandangalam tarwad being reverted to Pandambeli. Appeal to the High Court 
was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
The issues requiring adjudication in the present appeal were whether 
F Pattakkal was a branch of Pandambeli tarwad and if so, whether they could 
claim properties of Kandangalam branch which stands extinct in 1958. 
Further, when a divided branch becomes extinct who could

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.