Dismissed

C.Bhaskaran v. Janu @ Janaki

Kerala HC14 Oct 2016RSA/82/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice K. Harilal dismissed this second appeal concerning a partition suit. The appellant challenged the allotment of a rectangular plot with a 15.4-metre width as being 'shapeless' and unusable. Holding that neither the plot nor the alternate allotment was unjust or inequitable given the total property extent, the court upheld the final decree.

What did the court decide?

The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

C.Bhaskaran Vs Janu @ Janaki — Partition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938

¶5

RSA.NO. 82 OF 2016 (B)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN AS 160/2012 OF ADDL. SUB COURT, THALASSERY DATED 30-07-2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN F.D.I.A. NO.2340 IN O.S. NO.309/2008 AND O.S. 309/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA DATED 17.03.2012

¶7

APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶8

C.BHASKARAN, AGED 46 YEARS,

¶9

S/O KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT SREE NILAYAM, CHAMPAD, P.O. PATHIRIYAD

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL

¶11

SRI.N.M.MADHU

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶13

1. JANU @ JANAKI, AGED 78 YEARS, W/O KUNHIRAMAN, RESIDING AT NHALIL HOUSE, PADUVILAYI AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. PATHIRIYAD-673 507

¶14

2. ILLATHUMKANDY SAROJINI, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O JANU, RESIDING AT NHALIL HOUSE, PADUVILAYI AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. PATHIRIYAD-673 507

¶15

3. ILLATHUMKANDY BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O JANU, RESIDING AT NHALIL HOUSE, PADUVILAYI AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. PATHIRIYAD-673 507

¶16

4. SATHI @ SAJITHA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O JANU, RESIDING AT NHALIL HOUSE, PADUVILAYI AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. PATHIRIYAD-673 507

¶17

R1-R4 BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON

¶18

SMT.G. P.RENUKADEVI SRI.C.K. LOHITHAKSHAN

¶19

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

DST

¶21

K. HARILAL, J.

¶22

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.S.A. No. 82 of 2016

¶23

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of October, 2016

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The scope and extent of consideration in

¶26

this appeal is confined to equity and reservation determined by the trial court in the final decree. The grievance of the appellant is that the width of the plot 'B' property allotted to the appellant is only 15.4 metres and the same stands in a rectangular shape. Therefore, the said plot cannot be used for any meaningful purpose.

¶27

Shri. V.R.K. Kaimal, the learned counsel

¶28

for the appellant advanced arguments, seeking remand of the matter to the trial court for a fresh allotment, on the aforesaid ground. Going by Ext.C6 plan, it is seen that the plot 'B' earmarked to the share of the appellant is having a width of 15.4 metres on the southern and northern sides and it is

¶29

R.S.A. No. 82 of 2016

¶30

lying as a rectangular plot in north south

¶31

direction. Even though, the width is only 15.4 metres only, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the said plot is shapeless plot and it cannot be used for any meaningful purpose. While claiming for a more convenient plot, according to the will and wish of the appellant, it is to be borne in mind that the total width of the share of the remaining four sharers of item No.1 is only 59.4 metres on the northern side and around 56.8 metres to southern side. Thus, the entire property allotted to the⁴ /5 share of the appellant is also having only a corresponding width and not too much more than the width of the plot allotted to the share of the respondent. The property can be allotted in a partition, on the basis of the entire extent of the property and the overall shape of the property. All the parties have to suffer to a certain extent,

¶32

R.S.A. No. 82 of 2016

¶33

-: 3 :-

¶34

considering the convenience of other parties also.

¶35

This Court is of the view that if the width of the property is increased, certainly it will affect the division of the property allotted to other sharers. This Court agrees with observations made by the court below that this much width is sufficient enough to use reasonably for the construction purpose. Thus, I do not find any kind of injustice or inequity in the allotment of sharers.

¶36

This Regular Second Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/- K. HARILAL,

JUDGE

DST

//True copy//

P.A. To Judge

C.Bhaskaran v. Janu @ Janaki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Bhaskaran v. Janu @ Janaki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samuel Oommen Vs the State of Kerala

Ananda Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sarasamma Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Treesa Fernandez Vs Sudharman

A.T.Sivaprasad Vs Jose Mathew

Thankamma Vs Ramanikuttiyamma