{"id":184611,"date":"2010-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-03-08T06:16:26","modified_gmt":"2015-03-08T00:46:26","slug":"p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"P.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 34 of 1997(C)\n\n\n\n1. P.D.NANU BALAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. LAKSHMANAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :14\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
            A.K. Basheer & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
           – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
                  A.S.Nos.34 & 130 of 1997\n<\/p>\n
          – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
          Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010
\n                               Judgment
\nBasheer, J:\n<\/p>\n
      These two appeals are directed against the preliminary<\/p>\n
decree and judgment in a suit for partition. While<\/p>\n
A.S.No.34 of 1997 is at the instance of defendant Nos.1 and<\/p>\n
2, the other appeal is by defendant No.6. The court below<\/p>\n
decreed the suit as prayed for directing partition of the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property and allotment of 7 out of 13 shares<\/p>\n
to the plaintiffs and the remaining 6 shares to the<\/p>\n
defendants.\n<\/p>\n
        2. The crucial issue that came up for consideration<\/p>\n
in the suit was whether the plaint schedule property was<\/p>\n
thavazhi property as contended by the plaintiffs. The court<\/p>\n
below answered the above question in the affirmative and<\/p>\n
held that plaintiffs were entitled to 7 out of 13 shares.<\/p>\n
        3. The case of the plaintiffs may be briefly noticed:<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.    : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
         4. The plaint schedule property with an old<\/p>\n
residential building, well etc. originally belonged to<\/p>\n
Perumpada Achu and his brother Kanaran. They<\/p>\n
assigned their right in the property in favour of<\/p>\n
Perumpada Chappila, Manni, Matha and Mathu<\/p>\n
through an assignment deed dated March 28, 1912. On<\/p>\n
the same day, the assignees (Smt.Chappila and others)<\/p>\n
mortgaged the said property to Perumpada Lakshmi<\/p>\n
and her three children viz., Suseela, Nanu (defendant<\/p>\n
No.1) and Vasu and handed over possession of the<\/p>\n
same to these mortgagees. The mortgage was for a<\/p>\n
period of 6 years and the mortgagees were permitted to<\/p>\n
effect improvements and take income therefrom. The<\/p>\n
mortgage was never redeemed by the mortgagors and<\/p>\n
therefore the mortgagees became absolute owners of<\/p>\n
the property.\n<\/p>\n
         5. It was contended by the plaintiffs that the<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.      : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
plaint schedule       property was enjoyed      as a<\/p>\n
Marumakkathayam tharwad property eversince its<\/p>\n
acquisition. Lakshmi and her 5 children, including<\/p>\n
Bhaskaran and Chandrasekharan who were born after<\/p>\n
execution of the mortgage deed constituted by<\/p>\n
thavazhy tharwad. Smt.Lakshmi passed away in or<\/p>\n
about 1925. Suseela the only daughter of Lakshmi<\/p>\n
died in 1980. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are<\/p>\n
the children and grandchildren of late Suseela.<\/p>\n
Bharathan, another son of Suseela died in the year<\/p>\n
1981. Defendant       No.5 is the widow of deceased<\/p>\n
Bharathan. Thus the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5<\/p>\n
are the members of thavazhy of late Suseela, daughter<\/p>\n
of  Perumpada        Lakshmi.   As  mentioned  earlier,<\/p>\n
defendant Nos.1 and 2 are two of the four sons of<\/p>\n
Perumpada       Lakshmi.    Of   the remaining   sons,<\/p>\n
Vasudevan died in 1966. Defendant No.6 is his widow.<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.     : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
The other son Bhaskaran died a bachelor in 1989.<\/p>\n
         6. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.1<\/p>\n
the eldest male member of the tharwad had been<\/p>\n
managing the property after the death of Lakshmi.<\/p>\n
There are three residential buildings in the property<\/p>\n
including the old tharwad house. The tharwad building<\/p>\n
was let out on rent to the Kerala State Electricity Board<\/p>\n
for a few years. Later, the Board vacated the building<\/p>\n
since it became dilapidated due to disrepair. Defendant<\/p>\n
No.1 became unable to look after and maintain the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property due to old age. Further, he<\/p>\n
refused to share the income from the property to the<\/p>\n
thavazhi members.\n<\/p>\n
         7. Plaintiffs contended that the property was<\/p>\n
liable to be partitioned into 13 shares and each one of<\/p>\n
them was entitled to one share each (7\/13).<\/p>\n
        8. Claim for partition was disputed and resisted<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.    : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
only by defendants 1, 2 and 6. Defendant No.1 in his<\/p>\n
written statement contended that the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property was never treated or enjoyed as a thavazhi<\/p>\n
property as alleged by the plaintiffs. The mortgage<\/p>\n
deed of the year 1912 (Ext.A1) was only a “simple<\/p>\n
mortgage” and possession was never handed over to<\/p>\n
the mortgagees. According to this defendant,       the<\/p>\n
mortgage property was outstanding in the possession<\/p>\n
of a tenant on the strength of a registered marupat.<\/p>\n
Later, the tenancy right was surrendered by the tenant<\/p>\n
to the jenmi and the jenmom right which was<\/p>\n
subsequently sold in a Court auction was purchased by<\/p>\n
one Kunjiraman with the funds of the Dr.Kumaran, the<\/p>\n
father of defendant No.1. Later, Dr.Kumaran got the<\/p>\n
jenmom right of the property assigned in his favour<\/p>\n
from Kunjiraman on the strength of Ext.B2 assignment<\/p>\n
deed of the year 1923. Still later, in 1942 Dr.Kumaran<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.     : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
executed Ext.B3 jenmom assignment deed in favour of<\/p>\n
his three male children viz., Nanu Balan (defendant<\/p>\n
No.1), Vasudevan and Chandrasekharan. Defendant<\/p>\n
No.1 asserted that there was no mention of thavazhi in<\/p>\n
any of the documents referred to above. He claimed<\/p>\n
1\/3rd share in the property. He conceded that defendant<\/p>\n
No.6 being the widow of his late brother Vasudevan,<\/p>\n
would be entitled to get 1\/6th share and the remaining<\/p>\n
1\/3rd would go to defendant No.2. In short, he<\/p>\n
contended that the plaintiffs and defendants other than<\/p>\n
defendant Nos.2 and 6 had no right in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property. Alternatively it was also prayed by<\/p>\n
him that if it was found that the right under the<\/p>\n
mortgage deed of 1912 was still subsisting, only those<\/p>\n
persons mentioned in the said document would be<\/p>\n
entitled to claim any share. Suseela, the daughter of<\/p>\n
Lakshmi would be entitled to get 1\/4th share which will<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.     : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
devolve on her six children. He further contended that<\/p>\n
he would be entitled to get 1\/5th share out of his<\/p>\n
mother’s share in addition to 1\/4th share as a co-owner.<\/p>\n
          9. The other contention raised by defendant<\/p>\n
No.1 was that the existing residential building in the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule building was constructed by him with<\/p>\n
his own funds and there was a specific understanding<\/p>\n
that it would be reserved in his favour in the event of<\/p>\n
partition. He further contended that no income had<\/p>\n
been obtained by him from the property at any point of<\/p>\n
time.\n<\/p>\n
         10. Defendant No.2 reiterated whatever had<\/p>\n
been stated by defendant No.1 in his written statement.<\/p>\n
But in his additional written statement it was contended<\/p>\n
by defendant No.2 that Section 4A of the Kerala Land<\/p>\n
Reforms Act had no application. Right of redemption<\/p>\n
was never exercised within the period of limitation or<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.    : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
even thereafter. The contention that the property had<\/p>\n
vested absolutely on the strength of continued and<\/p>\n
uninterrupted possession was also disputed.    It was<\/p>\n
further contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to<\/p>\n
decide the tenancy right claimed on the strength of<\/p>\n
Section 4A, in view of the bar under Section 125 of<\/p>\n
the Act.\n<\/p>\n
         11. Defendant No.6 (widow of Vasudevan) in<\/p>\n
her written statement supported the case of defendant<\/p>\n
Nos.1 and 2. and contended that the property was never<\/p>\n
enjoyed as a Marumakkathayam thavazy property. The<\/p>\n
property was acquired with the funds of Dr.Kumaran,<\/p>\n
to be enjoyed by his wife and children. She further<\/p>\n
contended that Lakshmi’s 1\/4th share in the property<\/p>\n
will alone assume the     character of thavazhi,   and<\/p>\n
Bhaskaran and Chandrasekharan, the two sons of<\/p>\n
Lakshmi, would get their respective shares only as<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.      : 9 :<\/span><\/p>\n
members of the thavazhy of Lakshmi in respect of her<\/p>\n
1\/4th share. In short, defendant No.6 contended that if<\/p>\n
at all there could be a claim       by the plaintiffs for<\/p>\n
partition of the property as thavazhy, it had to be<\/p>\n
limited to 1\/4th share in that property. She claimed<\/p>\n
12\/44 share in the property which accrued to her late<\/p>\n
husband.\n<\/p>\n
         12. Defendant Nos.3 and 4, the grandchildren<\/p>\n
of Suseela and        the only daughter of Lakshmi<\/p>\n
supported partition. Defendant No.5, the daughter in<\/p>\n
law of Suseela remained absent and she was set ex<\/p>\n
parte,<\/p>\n
         The trial court framed the following issues:<\/p>\n
        “1. Whether the plaint schedule property
\n        is a tavazhy property and whether the
\n        plaintiffs have share in it?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        2. What are the correct shares in case of
\n        partition?\n<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.     : 10 :<\/span><\/p>\n
        3. What are the reservations and
\n        equities?\n<\/p>\n
        4. Who is liable to pay share of profit
\n        and what is the quantum?\n<\/p>\n
        Addl.5. Whether the plaintiffs are
\n        deemed tenants?”\n<\/p>\n
         13. Plaintiff No.1 was examined as Pw.1 and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 got himself examined as<\/p>\n
DW.1 and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of<\/p>\n
the defendants. The report and account submitted by<\/p>\n
the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Exts.C1<\/p>\n
and C2.\n<\/p>\n
         14. As has been mentioned already, the court<\/p>\n
below repelled the contentions raised by the contesting<\/p>\n
defendants and held that the plaint schedule property<\/p>\n
was liable to be partitioned as claimed by the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
The court below held that considering the nature of<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.      : 11 :<\/span><\/p>\n
acquisition of the property and its enjoyment thereafter,<\/p>\n
it was liable to be partitioned among the plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
defendants, they being “successors in interest” of the<\/p>\n
thavazhy property. Plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 who<\/p>\n
are the members of thavazhy of late Suseela, the only<\/p>\n
daughter of Lakshmi, would be entitled to get 1\/13<\/p>\n
share each in the property, it was held.<\/p>\n
         15. It is contended by the appellants, who<\/p>\n
alone resisted partition, that the findings entered by the<\/p>\n
court below are totally illegal and erroneous.<\/p>\n
According to the appellants, the property was never<\/p>\n
acquired with an intention to be enjoyed as a thavazhi<\/p>\n
property and in fact it had never been enjoyed as a<\/p>\n
thavazhy property also. It is pointed out by learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants that the property was<\/p>\n
mortgaged in favour of Lakshmi and her three children<\/p>\n
viz., Suseela, Nanu Balan (defendant No.1) and<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.     : 12 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Vasudevan in the year 1912. If in fact the acquisition<\/p>\n
was intended to be for the benefit of thavazhy headed<\/p>\n
by Suseela, such an intention would have been made<\/p>\n
explicit in the document itself. Admittedly Suseela had<\/p>\n
5 children. But the other two children viz., Bhaskaran<\/p>\n
and Chandrsekharan were not included in the mortgage<\/p>\n
deed. It is further contended by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
that the mortgaged property was outstanding in the<\/p>\n
possession of a tenant at the time of mortgage. The said<\/p>\n
tenant (Sri.Puthiyapurayil Aboobacker) had later<\/p>\n
surrendered his tenancy right to the Jenmi. The<\/p>\n
jenmom right was sold in court auction in execution of<\/p>\n
a decree in SC.No.1492\/1911. In the court auction the<\/p>\n
jenmom right was purchased by one Kunjiraman with<\/p>\n
the funds made available by Dr.Kumaran, who later<\/p>\n
had assigned the jenmom right over the property in<\/p>\n
favour of his three sons viz., defendant No.1,<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.    : 13 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Vasudevan and Chandrasekharan. Thus according to<\/p>\n
the learned counsel, the property exclusively belonged<\/p>\n
to defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6. At any rate, it can never<\/p>\n
be said that the property was being       enjoyed as a<\/p>\n
thavazhi property.\n<\/p>\n
         16. The main plank of the above argument is<\/p>\n
that Lakshmi and her three children mentioned in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 mortgage deed had never got possession of the<\/p>\n
property pursuant to the mortgage. According to the<\/p>\n
contesting defendants, the mortgaged property was<\/p>\n
outstanding in the possession of a tenant at the time of<\/p>\n
the mortgage. But a perusal of Ext.A1 mortgage deed<\/p>\n
will unambiguously show that the said contention is<\/p>\n
totally baseless and incorrect. It is seen recited in the<\/p>\n
said document, that the entire property including the<\/p>\n
building and other structures therein had been put in<\/p>\n
the possession of the mortgagees on the date of<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.       : 14 :<\/span><\/p>\n
execution of the document itself. Therefore the<\/p>\n
contention that the property was outstanding in the<\/p>\n
possession of a tenant falls to the ground.<\/p>\n
         17. It is true that the document recites that one<\/p>\n
Aboobacker had been given the right to take usufructs<\/p>\n
(melpattom) from the property. It is seen further recited<\/p>\n
in the document that the melpattom right was liable to<\/p>\n
be terminated.      For this purpose a notice signed by<\/p>\n
the mortgagors to be issued to the melpattomdar was<\/p>\n
also handed over to the mortgagees. The recitals in the<\/p>\n
above document will show that Aboobacker had no<\/p>\n
tenancy right in the property as alleged by the<\/p>\n
contesting defendants.         More importantly,       the<\/p>\n
contesting defendants had not adduced any evidence to<\/p>\n
show that the so called tenant, if any, had surrendered<\/p>\n
his tenancy right to the landlord. There is not even<\/p>\n
any semblance of evidence to substantiate the above<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.     : 15 :<\/span><\/p>\n
contention. The appellants had not even pleaded as to<\/p>\n
when the tenant had surrendered his right, leave alone<\/p>\n
producing any document of surrender. Further, Exts.B2<\/p>\n
and B3 on which heavy reliance had been placed by the<\/p>\n
appellants,     will not show that Dr.Kumaran had<\/p>\n
obtained any possessory right over the property. It is<\/p>\n
evident from the pleadings of the appellant that<\/p>\n
Dr.Kumaran had purchased only jenmom right from<\/p>\n
one Kunjiraman on the strength of Ext.B2 document.<\/p>\n
This is explicit from the said document itself. Ext.B3<\/p>\n
will also show that Dr.Kumaran had assigned only<\/p>\n
jenmom right over the property in favour of his three<\/p>\n
sons including defendant No.1.       In short, there is<\/p>\n
nothing on record to show that the mortgagees<\/p>\n
mentioned in Ext.A1 (Lakshmi and her three children)<\/p>\n
had never been put in possession of the property<\/p>\n
pursuant to the creation of the mortgage. As mentioned<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.      : 16 :<\/span><\/p>\n
earlier, Ext.A1 clearly established otherwise.<\/p>\n
         18. In this context it may be noticed that the<\/p>\n
contention of defendant No.1 is that he had constructed<\/p>\n
the residential building in the property using his own<\/p>\n
funds. This necesssarily means that he along with his<\/p>\n
mother, sister (Suseela) and others had always been in<\/p>\n
possession of the property.       In the absence of any<\/p>\n
specific pleading as to when he and his brothers got<\/p>\n
exclusive possession of the property from the<\/p>\n
jenmi\/owner after the so called surrender by the tenant,<\/p>\n
it can never be said that the mortgagees had not got<\/p>\n
possession of the property pursuant to Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
         19.     The other contention raised by the<\/p>\n
appellants is that the acquisition of the property was<\/p>\n
not for the benefit of the thavazhi at all. In support of<\/p>\n
the above contention it was pointed out that all the<\/p>\n
children of Lakshmi were not included in Ext.A1<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.     : 17 :<\/span><\/p>\n
mortgage deed. But it is the admitted position that in<\/p>\n
the year 1912 when Ext.A1 mortgage deed was<\/p>\n
executed,     Lakshmi had only three children viz.,<\/p>\n
Suseela, Nanu (defendant No.1) and Vasudevan. The<\/p>\n
other two sons viz., Bhaskaran and Chandrasekharan<\/p>\n
were born subsequently. Still further, the recitals in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 will show that the mortgage money had been<\/p>\n
contributed by Dr.Kumaran, the husband of Lakshmi,<\/p>\n
and father of the other mortgagees. There is specific<\/p>\n
reference to the payment made by Dr.Kumaran for the<\/p>\n
purpose of acquisition of this property to be enjoyed by<\/p>\n
his wife     and then available children. The amount<\/p>\n
contributed by Dr.Kumaran is        referred to in the<\/p>\n
document as “derived out of puthravakasam fund of<\/p>\n
Lakshmi and children”. That plaintiffs and defendants<\/p>\n
3 to 5 are the members of the thavazhi of Suseela, the<\/p>\n
only daughter of Lakshmi was not at all in dispute.<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.     : 18 :<\/span><\/p>\n
         20.     The contesting    defendants in their<\/p>\n
respective written statements have practically conceded<\/p>\n
that Suseela had at least mortgagee’s right in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property. Their only contention was that the<\/p>\n
children and grandchildren of Suseela could not have<\/p>\n
claimed share in the plaint schedule property as though<\/p>\n
it was a thavazhy property. But going by the materials<\/p>\n
available on record, we have no hesitation to hold that<\/p>\n
the property was acquired by Dr.Kumaran and<\/p>\n
Lakshmi to be enjoyed by her children as a thavazhy<\/p>\n
property. We have no hesitation to hold that the<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the contesting defendants to deny<\/p>\n
the legitimate right of the      lenial descendants of<\/p>\n
Suseela are totally without any merit or substance.<\/p>\n
     21. The court below had also referred to the oral<\/p>\n
testimony of defendant No.2 in the case, who was<\/p>\n
examined as DW.1. To a question in the course of<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.      : 19 :<\/span><\/p>\n
cross examination, defendant No.2 had admitted that<\/p>\n
the Melpattomdar (Aboobacker) mentioned in Ext.A1<\/p>\n
document had been given only the right to take<\/p>\n
usufructs. The court below had also noticed that<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 had never bothered to step into the<\/p>\n
witness box. It may be remembered that he was the<\/p>\n
only surviving beneficiary (mortgagee) available at the<\/p>\n
time of trial of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
          22. The court below had also referred to the<\/p>\n
order passed       on additional issue No.5 relating to<\/p>\n
deemed tenancy. After considering the said issue the<\/p>\n
court below had held that the question of tenancy was<\/p>\n
not liable to be referred to the Land Tribunal. The said<\/p>\n
finding was never challenged by any of the parties at<\/p>\n
any point of time.        The appellants have also not<\/p>\n
questioned the validity or correctness of the said<\/p>\n
finding in these two appeals.. Further it is on record<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.    : 20 :<\/span><\/p>\n
that Dr.Kumaran had purchased the jenmom right from<\/p>\n
the Jenmi. Though in Ext.B3 Dr.Kumaran had referred<\/p>\n
to the names of only three of his male children, we are<\/p>\n
of the considered opinion that the jenmom right<\/p>\n
obtained by the Dr.Kumaran shall enure to the benefit<\/p>\n
of all his children including Suseela, the only female<\/p>\n
child.\n<\/p>\n
         23. The other contention raised by defendant<\/p>\n
No.1 was that he had constructed the residential<\/p>\n
building in the property with his own funds and that<\/p>\n
too with a specific understanding that it would be<\/p>\n
allotted to his share in the event of partition. But<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 did not adduce any evidence in support<\/p>\n
of the above contention. In that view of the matter, the<\/p>\n
court below had rightly rejected the above claim made<\/p>\n
by defendant No.1.\n<\/p>\n
         24. Yet another contention raised by defendant<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.    : 21 :<\/span><\/p>\n
No.1 was that he had not been getting any income<\/p>\n
from the plaint schedule property to be shared among<\/p>\n
the other members. But this contention was repelled.<\/p>\n
Referring to Exts.C1 and C2 report and accounts<\/p>\n
submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, the court<\/p>\n
below directed that the quantum of share of profits of<\/p>\n
the parties can be decided in the final decree<\/p>\n
proceedings. Having considered the materials available<\/p>\n
on record, we are satisfied that the finding entered by<\/p>\n
the court below on issue No.4 does not call for any<\/p>\n
interference.\n<\/p>\n
         25. While dealing with issue No.2 the court<\/p>\n
below has, in our view, correctly, held that        the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are entitled to   7\/13 shares (1\/13 each).<\/p>\n
Similarly defendant No.1 to 6 are found entitled to get<\/p>\n
1\/13 shares each. Since it has already been found that<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule property is to be divided as<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.34 & 170\/1997.       : 22 :<\/span><\/p>\n
thavazhy property among the thavazhi members, the<\/p>\n
finding entered by the court below on issue No.2 also<\/p>\n
does not call for any interference.\n<\/p>\n
         26. For the foregoing reasons it is held that the<\/p>\n
conclusions arrived at by the court below are totally<\/p>\n
legal and valid and eminently justified, in the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case.      The decree and judgment<\/p>\n
are upheld.\n<\/p>\n
         27. The appeals are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
         In the facts and circumstances of the case, the<\/p>\n
parties shall suffer their respective costs.<\/p>\n
                                  A.K. Basheer
\n                                       Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                  P.S. Gopinathan
\n                                       Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\nan.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 34 of 1997(C) 1. P.D.NANU BALAN … Petitioner Vs 1. LAKSHMANAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY For Respondent :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN Dated :14\/10\/2010 O R D E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-184611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-08T00:46:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-08T00:46:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3198,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010\",\"name\":\"P.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-08T00:46:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-08T00:46:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-08T00:46:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010"},"wordCount":3198,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010","name":"P.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-08T00:46:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-d-nanu-balan-vs-lakshmanan-on-14-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.D.Nanu Balan vs Lakshmanan on 14 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184611","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=184611"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184611\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}