IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 138 of 2007()
1. SMT.SARADA AMMA, W/O.NARAYANAN NAIR.
... Petitioner
2. GOPINATHAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR.
3. LAKSHMI BHAI, D/O.NARAYANAN NAIR.
4. BIJU, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR.
Vs
1. EACHKUTTY NAIR, S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA,
... Respondent
2. JANAKI AMMA, CHITTILANGAT KIZHAKKETHIL.
3. PARUKUTTY AMMA,
4. MADHAVAN NAIR,
5. APPUNNI NAIR, CHITTILANGAT KIZHAKKETHIL.
6. KAMALAKSHYKUTTY AMMA,
7. PRADEEP, CHITTILANGAT KIZHAKKETHIL.
8. JALAJA, CHITTILANGAT KIZHAKKETHIL.
For Petitioner :SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :14/02/2007
O R D E R
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C.R.P.NO.138 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of February 2007
ORDER
The petitioners are additional defendants 9 to 12 in
O.S.100/86 on the file of Sub Court, Ottapalam. Suit is one for
partition. The petitioners filed I.A.1805/06 pointing out that
certain mistakes are committed by the Commissioner and
wanted to remit back the Commissioner’s report. That was
rejected by the final decree court vide order dated 4.1.2007 and
on the same day final decree is passed vide order on I.A.1062/04
dated 4.1.2007. What is produced in this revision as the order
assailed is the final decree so passed. It is seen observed by the
final decree court that one objection raised by the present
petitioners is regarding the valuation of the house situated in
items 1 and 2 of the ‘B’ schedule wherein they are residing.
According to them, the value shown as Rs.4,00,000/- is highly
excessive. The court observed when the matter came up for
consideration that the plaintiff was ready to take the house
valuing it at Rs.4= lakhs which offer was not acceptable to the
petitioners. Another contention was that the plots allotted to the
C.R.P.NO.138 OF 2007
2
plaintiff have got more road frontage and have more potential
value than the plot allotted to the petitioners. As regards this
objection also the court observed that plaintiff was ready to
exchange the plots and when that was suggested to the
petitioners they were not amenable to that either. It was in view
of things so transpired that the court below found that the
allotment is equitable; that there is no merit in the objection
raised in the Commissioner’s report and that the objections are
devoid of merit. It is accordingly the final decree was passed
dismissing their application for remission of Commissioner’s
report sought for vide I.A.1805/06. If at all the petitioners are
having any grievance they can try their chance in an appeal filed
against the final decree, if they so choose.
This CRP is devoid of merit and it is dismissed.
K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE
jes