High Court Kerala High Court

Anandhakrishnan vs Madhavi on 11 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
Anandhakrishnan vs Madhavi on 11 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

AS.No. 505 of 1997(E)



1. ANANDHAKRISHNAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. MADHAVI
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :11/12/2009

 O R D E R
                      HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
                 --------------------------
                      A.S.NO.505 OF 1997
                 --------------------------
            DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

Plaintiff in O.S.No.27/990 on the file of the Sub

Court, Palakkad is the appellant. The suit was filed for partition.

The court below passed a preliminary decree directing partition

of the plaint schedule properties into 10 equal shares and to allot

one out of such shares to the plaintiff and consequential reliefs

are also granted. The plaintiff claimed for partition and

separation of his share over the plaint schedule property after

adjusting 3.01 acres of land surrendered as excess land pursuant

to the ceiling proceedings. The trial court declined the prayer of

the plaintiff for consideration of 3.01 acres of excess land while

making division and passed a decree for partition and separate

possession of his share over the plaint schedule properties.

Aggrieved by the findings declining adjustment over 3.01 acres,

-2-
A.S.No.505/97

this appeal is filed. The parties hereinafter referred to as plaintiff

and defendants as arrayed in the suit.

2. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged

to late Chammuni, who is the father of the plaintiff and

defendants 2 to 9. The lst defendant is the mother of the plaintiff

and other defendants. The property sought to be partitioned is

the property obtained by late Chamunni, as per Ext.A1 partition

deed of the year 1971. Plaint schedule properties are the A

schedule properties to Ext.A1 partition deed. Chamunni died

intestate on 3/7/1988.

3. The contesting defendants did not dispute the

partibility of the plaint schedule properties. They contended inter

alia that there was no joint decision or arrangement for surrender

of excess land out of the properties set apart to the share of the

plaintiff, or to compensate the plaintiff such extent surrendered

and that the entire extent of 3.01 acres of excess land was

surrendered consequent on the order passed by the Taluk Land

-3-
A.S.No.505/97

Board.

4. It is not disputed that during the life time of father,

ceiling proceedings were initiated against the father and the

Taluk Land Board held that late Chamunni is liable to surrender

3.01 acres of land as excess land. The trial court rejected the

contention of the plaintiff that there was an agreement between

the sharers to compensate the area surrendered at the time of

actual division of the father’s share. The trial court rightly held

that excepting the interested testimony of the plaintiff, there was

no material placed before the court below to accept the said

contention. It is a fact that a portion of the property obtained by

the plaintiff under the partition deed was taken over by the

Government in the ceiling proceedings. The order was passed by

the Taluk Land Board directing surrender of 3.01 acres of land,

since the properties belonged to the father. For the aforesaid

reasons, the prayer of the plaintiff for pro-rata adjustment of 3.01

acres of land for division is declined.

-4-
A.S.No.505/97

5. The trial court further held that the plaint schedule

properties belonged to the father and the parties to the suit are

entitled to inherit the properties. There is no serious dispute

regarding the quantum of shares. Therefore, a preliminary decree

has been passed for division of the properties into 10 equal shares

and to allot one of such share to the plaintiff. Admittedly,

defendants 1 to 9, who are also the legal heirs of the deceased

father, are also entitled to inherit and share the property equally.

In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with

the judgment and decree passed by the court below. The

contentions raised by the appellant in the said circumstances

cannot stand.

In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

HARUN-UL-RASHID,
JUDGE.

kcv.

-5-
A.S.No.505/97