IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RFA.No. 350 of 2010()
1. A.D.SUDHAKARAN, S/O.DAMODHARAN
... Petitioner
2. GOURI, W/O.DAMODHARAN,
Vs
1. A.D.BHANUMATHI, W/O.RAGHUVARAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :15/06/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
R.F.A.NO.350 OF 2010
.............................................
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the order in
O.S.No.200/1992 of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kochi. As
per the preliminary decree, the plaintiff is entitled to one
out of three shares and the remaining to the respondents.
The appellants have purchased the other share and they are
entitled to two out of three shares. The total property
involved in the case is about 6.895 cents. Out of this, 0.200
cents is set apart to be used as pathway. The Commissioner,
who inspected the property had divided and set apart plot
A to the share of the plaintiff in the final decree and the
remaining plot to the appellants herein. Total extent of the
property which is allotted to the share of the plaintiff is only
2.010 cents out of the total extent of 6.895 cents. The
main grievance is that the entire property should be allotted
to the present respondent and she is prepared to give
amount towards equilisation of shares. 6 cents of land can
be divided and has been divided and as far as possible law
: 2 :
R.F.A.NO.350 OF 2010
envisages partition of the property and it is only in
exceptional cases other mode is alloted. It is the settled
principle that suppose a co-owner without consent effects
improvements in the property and if it affects the share of
the others, equity cannot be worked out in such cases. It is
reported in the decision reported in Kassinkunju v.
Velayudhan Pialli (1972 KLT 861). The Commissioner has
alloted the property in the most equitable manner and just
because the appellants want the entire property to be given
to them, one cannot classify the partition as improper and
therefore, I decline to admit the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl
: 3 :
R.F.A.NO.350 OF 2010