Judgment :- 1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 98 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam are the appellants herein. During the pendency of the appeal, the first appellant died and his legal representatives are additional appellants 6 to 9 and 24th respondent. Respondents 5, 6 and 7 were also dead and their legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 18 to 22. R.7, is recorded as legal representative of the deceased 6th respondent. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for setting aside various sale deeds executed by the first defendant and for partition of 1/2 share of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs are brothers and sisters. They had one more sister by name Saudamini Amma who died issueless on 30th December, 1981. The first defendant is the husband of deceased Saudamini Amma. The plaint A schedule properties were allotted to deceased Saudamini Amma under Ext.A1 partition deed, B schedule under Ext.A2 exchange deed and plaint C schedule as per Ext.A3 settlement deed executed by her father, late Gopala Pillai. Plaint A schedule item No. 3 and Plaint C schedule item No. 6 properties were sold in the life time of Saudamini Amma and with the said funds plaint D schedule properties were acquired. All the above properties are the ancestral property of deceased Saudamini Amma. The plaintiffs and late Saudamini Amma were following Marumakkathayam System of Inheritance. On the death of Saudamini Amma, her right over the properties devolved upon her father and first defendant, her husband. Under S.16(3) of the Hindu Succession Act, the father is entitled to get one-half of the right over the plaint schedule properties and since the father died in 1966, the plaintiffs are entitled to get one-half of the right over the plaint schedule properties. The demand made by the plaintiffs for partition was not headed by the first defendant. He created some alienation in favour of other defendants. Exts.A4 to A9 are the sale deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of strangers. The recital in those documents would show that on the date of execution, no amounts were paid but for past consideration, the documents were being executed. So, it can be seen that they are sham documents. The first defendant has no right to execute those documents and hence the documents are not binding on the plaintiffs. The recital in those documents would show that on the date of execution, no amounts were paid but for past consideration, the documents were being executed. So, it can be seen that they are sham documents. The first defendant has no right to execute those documents and hence the documents are not binding on the plaintiffs. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession of their one-half right. 3. The first respondent alone filed a written statement contending that the plaintiffs are not legal heirs of late Saudamini Amma. The mode of acquisition of properties by Saudamini Amma is admitted. After the death of Saudamini Amma, it devolved on the first defendant under S.17(ii) of the Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any right over the properties since succession certificate was issued by a competent civil court in his favour in respect of the money left by the deceased in O.P. (Succession) 60/1982 before the Sub Court, Kollam. It is further contended that father of late Saudamini Amma has not obtained any right under the Hindu Succession Act, as he was not alive on the date of death of Saudamini Amma. Suit is to be dismissed. 4. The Court below framed 7 issues. The evidence consists of the deposition of P.W.1 and D.W.1, Exts.A1 to A9 and B1. The Court below on appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the suit. Against the dismissal of the suit, this appeal is filed by the plaintiffs. 5. Admittedly, the properties scheduled in the plaint originally belonged to late Saudamini Amma, sister of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is the husband of deceased Saudamini Amma. Admittedly, Saudamini Amma died issueless. It is an admitted case of both parties that they were following Marumakkathayam System of Inheritance. So, according to the plaintiffs, on the death of Saudamini Amma, her right devolved on her father and husband. Since the father is no more, his one-half right over the properties devolved on the plaintiffs. Since the properties were ancestral properties, S.16 of the Hindu Succession Act is applicable to them. The evidence shows that plaint schedule properties were the properties of late Saudamini Amma obtained either from her parents or acquisitions made with the nucleus of the properties obtained from her parents. Since the properties were ancestral properties, S.16 of the Hindu Succession Act is applicable to them. The evidence shows that plaint schedule properties were the properties of late Saudamini Amma obtained either from her parents or acquisitions made with the nucleus of the properties obtained from her parents. The plaintiffs claim one-half share over the plaint schedule property as the same was devolved on them as per S.16 of the Hindu Succession Act. Late Gopala Pillai, father of Saudamini Amma died in 1966 and her mother died in 1980. So, on the date of death of Saudamini Amma, her mother and father were not alive. As per the plaintiffs, under S.16(3) of the Hindu Succession Act, it must be deemed that the share of the father had devolved on the plaintiffs. S.15 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows: "15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.? (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in S.16,- (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s.(1),- (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son of daughter), not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-s.(1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased, (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-s.(1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband." It is the admitted case of the plaintiffs that they were following Marumakkathayam System of Inheritance. So, S.15 of the Act not applicable. Admittedly, there is no heir as specified in S.17(i)(a) to succeed late Saudamini Amma. So S.17(ii)(b) is applicable to the parties. The heirs are father and husband. So, S.15 of the Act not applicable. Admittedly, there is no heir as specified in S.17(i)(a) to succeed late Saudamini Amma. So S.17(ii)(b) is applicable to the parties. The heirs are father and husband. Since father pre-deceased Saudamini Amma, husband has become the sole legal heir of Saudamini Amma. S.15 of the Hindu Succession Act lays down the General Rules of succession in the case of female Hindus governed by the Mitakshara Law. S.17 of the Act deals with provisions in respect of the person who were following Marumakkathayam System of Inheritance. Since Saudamini Amma died issueless, as per S.17(ii)(b), the heirs are the father and husband. Since the father pre-deceased Saudamini Amma, her husband became her sole heir. S.16 of the Act lays down the order of succession among the heirs referred to in S.15 and the distribution of intestate's property among those heirs. R.3 of S.16 is formulated only to ascertain the heirs specified in Cls.(b), (d) and (e) of sub-s.(i) and in sub-s.(ii) of S.15. Since the father of the intestate is not alive when the succession opened her husband alone is entitled to succeed the assets of the deceased to the exclusion of the others. It is to be noted that as per S.17(3), Cl.(a) of sub-s.(ii) of S.15 had been omitted. Here, in this case, the plaintiffs have no case that they are not following Marumakkathayam System of Inheritance. Therefore, it is to be found that on the death of Saudamini Amma, the first defendant alone has become the legal heir of deceased Saudamini Amma and as such, he is entitled to the assets of the deceased. In such case, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share as claimed by them. On a perusal of the entire evidence, I find that the Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence and dismissed the suit. In the result the judgment and decree of the court below are confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.