Radha vs Sarala on 25 May, 2009

Kerala High Court
Radha vs Sarala on 25 May, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  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/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *