This second appeal against a preliminary decree in a partition suit was dismissed. The High Court noted the absence of primary evidence (a 1971 document) to substantiate the appellant's claim of self-acquisition and held no question of law arose for consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930
RSA.No. 1008 of 2008()
O.S.NO.302/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALATHUR A.S.NO.294/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS:
BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND
RESPONDENT(S):
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = R.S.A.No.1008 of 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008
JUDGMENT
Defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.No.302 of 2003 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Alathur are the appellants in this second appeal. The said suit instituted by respondents 1 and 2 herein was one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share over three items of immovable property described as A,B and C schedules. The present dispute pertains only to the plaint A schedule Property having an extent of 6 cents comprised in Survey No.189/5 of Kottayi village.
2
R.S.A.No.1008 of 2008
property of the 1st defendant, the appellants contended that the plaint A schedule property was the self acquisition of Chamy as per a registered document of the year 1971 and that on the death of Chamy in the year 1975 the property had devolved upon the 1st defendant and his brothers, that they divided the properties as per a partition deed and subsequently the 1st defendant's brothers executed Ext.B1 release deed dated 21.5.95 releasing their rights over the property in favour of the 1st defendant.
3
R.S.A.No.1008 of 2008
findings of the trial court. Evenafter the observation by the trial court that the defendants did not produce the document of the year 1971 to substantiate their case that the property was the self acquisition by Chamy, they did not produce the said document even before the lower court. Hence the conclusion reached by the courts below cannot be faulted with.
I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The questions of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal also do not arise for consideration in this second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the orders of the trial court and lower appellate court in a partition suit regarding title and extent of property require interference in second appeal.
Vella
Paru
Chamukuttan
Sundaran
Pushpa
Reshma
V. Ramkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
