IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RFA.No. 61 of 2004()
1. MALAYIL SREEDHARAN, S/O.IMBICHAN,
... Petitioner
2. MALAYIL SAROJINI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
Vs
1. K.SAIDALAVI, S/O.KANNANARI MUHAMMED
... Respondent
2. MALAYIL RAVEENDRAN, S/O.MALAYIL IMBICHAN
3. MALAYIL AMMUKUTTY, D/O.IMBICHAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :11/06/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.F.A. NO. 61/2004, F.A.O. 143/2005 &
R.F.A. 584 & 585/2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Bhavadasan, J.
Three suits namely, O.S. Nos. 69/2000, 285/2000 & 415/2001 on the
file of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode were disposed of by a
common judgment. The court below dismissed O.S. 415/2001, which was
one for injunction. A preliminary decree was passed in O.S. 69/2000
which was one for partition and O.S. 285/2000 was decreed with costs
enabling the plaintiff in that suit to recover money on the basis of an
agreement. R.F.A. 61/2004 is directed against the judgment and decree in
O.S. 285/2000 by Defendants 3 and 4 in that suit. R.F.A. 584/2007 is
directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. 69/2000 by Defendants
2,4,5 and 6. R.F.A. 585/2007 is directed against the decision rendered in
O.S. 415/2001 and the appellant is the sole plaintiff in the said suit.
2. In the suit for partition, plaintiff claimed that she is the legal heir
of one Balakrishnan along with the first defendant in the said suit. The
R.F.A. 61/04, RFA 584 & 585/07 &
F.A.O. 143/2005 :2:
defendants in the partition suit set up an oral partition and contended that
Item No.1 of plaint B schedule property was jointly acquired by deceased
Balakrishnan and the 2nd defendant in the said suit. Item No.2 of plaint B
schedule was also belonged to Balakrishnan. Plaintiff disputed the oral
partition set up by the defendants and claimed right along with the
defendant in the suit, consequent on the death of Balakrishnan. O.S.
415/2001 is a suit filed by the defendant in the partition suit for injunction
against the plaintiff in the partition suit. That was dismissed by the court
below. O.S. 285/2000 was one for return of the balance sale consideration
with interest. The plaintiff therein alleged that in respect of the property
owned by Balakrishnan, an agreement for sale was executed by his legally
constituted power of attorney – the first defendant and the plaintiff and
advance amount was received by Balakrishnan. That was also decreed. In
the partition suit, a preliminary decree was passed.
3. As far as the partition suit is concerned, even before this Court,
there is no dispute regarding the shares available to each of the parties and
the only dispute is regarding the oral partition set up by the defendants in
the suit for partition. That was found against the defendants. Even before
this Court, the defendants in the partition suit were unable to justify the
claim for oral partition. Before this Court, it is pointed out that the
R.F.A. 61/04, RFA 584 & 585/07 &
F.A.O. 143/2005 :3:
appellants in R.F.A. 584/2007 (appeal arising from the partition suit) have
claimed reservation in respect of the property jointly owned by
Balakrishnan, the plaintiff and the first defendant and contended that she
had put up the building standing in the property by spending her own funds
and that was excluded from the oral partition between Balakrishnan and the
defendant. The court below has already noticed and refused to accept the
said contention. But as far as possible, the building situated in the property
can be alloted to the share of the second defendant in equity. The plaintiff
in the partition suit admits that half share of the building can be set apart to
the share of the defendants in the said suit. There is no dispute regarding
the shares in the movables in the partition suit.
4. All what is to be done is that as far as possible the portion of the
property where the building is situated may be allotted to the share of the
second defendant in the partition suit and on valuation of the building by a
commissioner, half the value of the building may be paid to the plaintiff in
the suit. It is pointed out that the plaintiff in the partition suit is entitled to
1/6th share of the value of the building. It is made clear that half of the
value of the building to be shared equally between the other sharers in the
partition suit.
R.F.A. 61/04, RFA 584 & 585/07 &
F.A.O. 143/2005 :4:
5. As far as R.F.A. 61/2004 is concerned, the main contention taken
is that the agreement based on which recovery of money is sought for, is a
forged and fabricated one (Ext. B1 document). The plaintiff in O.S.
285/2000 relied on Exts. B1 and B2 documents in support of his contention
for recovery of advance amount paid by him. Even though it is disputed by
the contesting defendants, the court below found in favour of the plaintiff in
that suit. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to substantiate his
contention against the finding of the court below in this regard and it is
only to be confirmed.
6. In the light of the decree in O.S. 69/2000 the court below was
perfectly justified in dismissing O.S. 415/2001. No ground is made out to
interfere with the judgment and decree under appeal. Therefore, R.F.A.
585/2007 stands dismissed.
7. F.A.O. 143/2005 is directed agaisnt the order dated 7.4.2005
in E.A. 126/2005 in E..A. 1235/2004 in E.P. 205/2003 in O.S. 285/2000.
By the said order, the court below reviewed its earlier order dated
29.1.2005. It appears that the decree was obtained by the first respondent
against the defendants in O.S. 285/2000 for return of advance amount
which is claimed to have been paid to Balakrishnan in pursuance of an
agreement for sale and that decree was put in execution. During the
R.F.A. 61/04, RFA 584 & 585/07 &
F.A.O. 143/2005 :5:
execution proceedings, the appellant before this Court entered appearance
and filed E.A. 1235/2004 pointing out that deceased Balakrishnan had
deposits in various banks and the amount in deposit in O.S. 69/2000 may
be called for to O.S. 285/2000, which was allowed On a review
application filed by Respondents 2 and 3 in the E.P, the said order was
reviewed as per order in E.A. 126/2005 and the court below ordered
transmission of the amount to the credit of O.S. 69/2000. In the light of the
fact that amounts due to late Balakrishnan from various Banks are in court
deposit nothing more is to be considered by the court below. The review
petition has become infructuous and it is only to be dismissed.
In the result,
(I) R.F.A. 858/2007 is dismissed.
(II) In R.F.A. 584 of 2007,
(a) Preliminary decree passed by the court below is confirmed
subject to
(i) Half share in the building shall be set apart to the second
defendant in the suit.
(ii) If possible, the portion of the property where the building
situates may be set apart to the share of second defendant.
(iii) If so allotted, share of the plaintiff in the value of the building
R.F.A. 61/04, RFA 584 & 585/07 &
F.A.O. 143/2005 :6:
as assessed by the court below shall be paid.
(iv) It is made clear that the share of others in the building shall be
equal.
(v). The preliminary decree as regards movables is confirmed.
III. R.F.A. 61of 2004 stands dismissed.
IV. F.A.O. 143 of 2005 is disposed of as infructuous, since the order in
the review petition before the court below has become infructuous.
The appeals are disposed of as above. In the circumstances, there will be
no order as to costs.
P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
KNC/-