IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 271 of 2009()
1. RADHA, D/O.BHARATHI, ANJILITHARAYIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SARALA, D/O.BHARATHI, VALIYATHARAYIL,
... Respondent
2. JAYARAM, S/O.DAMODARAN,
3. SREEDEVI, D/O.BHARATHI,
4. SHOBHANA, D/O.BHARATHI,
5. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUMARAN,
6. T.K.JAYALAKSHMI, W/O.SIDDHARTHAN,
7. SREEJESH, S/O.SIDDHARTHAN,
8. SREECHAND, S/O.SIDDHARTHAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VINODKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :25/05/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
C.R.P.No.271 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009
O R D E R
Petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned
Additional Munsiff, Cherthala in I.A.No.776/2007 in
O.S.No.620/2004 in which a preliminary decree was passed, and
proceedings in the final decree are now pending. Petitioner’s
mother was the first defendant in the suit and she was allotted a
share in the property covered by the suit. After passing of the
preliminary decree, she had executed a will and thereby the
petitioner is entitled to a share in the property allotted to her
mother along with other legal heirs, is the case of the petitioner.
She moved an application to set aside the preliminary decree
already passed seeking a fresh preliminary decree allotting her
share consequent to the death of her mother. Learned Munsiff
dismissed that application as not maintainable, and correctness
of that order is impeached in this revision petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
C.R.P.No.271 of 2009
2
3. From the submissions made and also statements made
in the memorandum of revision petition it is seen that the
petitioner seeks for passing a preliminary decree afresh,
consequent to the death of her mother one of the defendants in
the suit who was allotted a share in the preliminary decree
passed by the court. She is now entitled to a share along with
other legal heirs in the property allotted to the mother is the
cause canvassed for the above relief. The preliminary decree
already passed by the court is not liable to be set aside and fresh
allotment cannot be made in respect of the shares/legal heirs of
the deceased 1st defendant. The petitioner has to seek
appropriate proceedings to have her share in the property
allotted to her mother, and the review petition moved by her was
correctly found by the learned Munsiff as not entertainable.
The revision petition is devoid of any merit and it is
dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-
