IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 854 of 2009()
1. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.KALLUPARAMBIL KADIRSHA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUHARABI, W/O.KALLUPARAMBIL KADIRSHA,
... Respondent
2. NURJAHAN, D/O.KALLUPARAMBIL KADIRSHA,
3. BABU, S/O.KALLUPARAMBIL KADIRSHA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :10/11/2010
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
-------------------------------
R.P. NO.854 OF 2009 IN
R.S.A.NO.464 OF 2009
-------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
O R D E R
R.S.A.No.464/2009 filed against the judgment and
decree in A.S.No.109/2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court,
Irinjalakuda was dismissed by this Court in limine. The appellant in
the second appeal is the lst defendant in the suit. In the final decree
proceedings Advocate Commissioner had submitted a report, based
on which the final decree was passed, which was challenged by the
appellant/lst defendant in A.S.No.109/2009. The appeal ended in
dismissal and therefore second appeal was filed.
2. This review petition is filed seeking to review of
the judgment in the second appeal. The dispute is with respect to
the allotment made in the final decree passed in the suit. The
grievance of the appellant is that the court below did not accept the
serious objections raised by him in the allotment of property to the
-3-
RP.No.854/2009
different sharers. The petitioner’s main grievance is that he is
entitled to proportionate road frontage in the property sought to be
partitioned. But the commissioner allotted less portion of the road
frontage, which affect his right seriously and will result in loss of
substantial value of the property. The commissioner’s report would
show that the road frontage has not been proportionally given to the
sharers. The petitioner is seriously aggrieved by the judgment of the
courts below in not allotting the property proportionally to the
sharers as declared by the court, which is against the spirit of the
preliminary decree passed by the court.
3. After hearing all the parties, who represented
different sharers, I am of the view that that the matter requires a
detailed hearing. The second appeal was dismissed in limine after
hearing the learned counsel for the appellant only. In view of the
grounds raised in the review petition, it is necessary to hear all the
parties in detail for taking a just decision.
-4-
RP.No.854/2009
In the result, the review petition is allowed. The
judgment dated 5th June, 2009 in R.S.A.No.464/2009 is set aside.
Sd/-
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
kcv.