Dismissed

Lalitha P.N. v. C.P.Haridasan

Kerala HC31 May 2022RFA/22/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular first appeal against a preliminary decree for partition, the High Court of Kerala noted that there was no dispute regarding shares. The court directed the trial court to have a surveyor locate the property and effect partition by metes and bounds, allowing for a joint settlement of 30 cents, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; trial court to dispose of final partition application within five months following survey and possible settlement.

Lalitha P.N. Vs C.P.Haridasan — Partition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 31^st DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

RFA NO. 22 OF 2016 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 20.06.2015 IN OS No.384/2012 OF

¶7

ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY

¶8

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶9

1 LALITHA P.N., AGED 65 YEARS, D/o VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT PONNIATH NALU PURAKKAL HOUSE, (VADAVIL HOUSE), KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, PO KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶10

2 NANDANAN P.N., AGED 62 YEARS, S/o VELAYUDHAN, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT PONNIATH NALU PURAKKAL HOUSE, (VADAVIL HOUSE), KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, PO KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶11

3 PREMA P.N., AGED 60 YEARS, S/o VELAYUDHAN, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT PONNIATH NALU PURAKKAL HOUSE, (VADAVIL HOUSE), KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, PO KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶12

4 GEETHA P.N., AGED 54 YEARS, D/o VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT PONNIATH NALU PURAKKAL HOUSE, (VADAVIL HOUSE), KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, PO KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶13

5 PHALGUNAN P.N., AGED 50 YEARS, S/o VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT PONNIATH NALU PURAKKAL HOUSE, (VADAVIL HOUSE), KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, PO KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶14

6 NADARAJAN P.N., AGED 44 YEARS, S/o VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT PONNIATH NALU PURAKKAL HOUSE, (VADAVIL HOUSE), KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM, PO KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶15

7 ROJA P.N., AGED 40 YEARS, D/o VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT PONNIATH NALU PURAKKAL HOUSE, (VADAVIL HOUSE), KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM,

¶16

RFA No.22 of 2016

¶17

¶18

PO KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶19

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI

¶20

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF:

¶21

1 C.P.HARIDASAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/o NANI, RESIDING AT C.P.SADANAM, MOKERI AMSOM AND DESOM, PO MOKERI, PANOOR, THALASSERY TALUK. 2 C.P.SAVITHRI, AGED 60 YEARS, D/o NANI AND W/o SURENDRAN, RESIDING AT CHAKROTTI PARAMBATH HOUSE, EDAYIL PEEDIKA, PALLOOR, MAHE COMMUNE PO, NALUTHARA.

¶22

3 SHOBHANA K.P., AGED 54 YEARS, D/o NANI, RESIDING AT PUTHUKKUDI HOUSE, EDACHOVVA, ELAYAVOOR, PO MUNDAYAD, KANNUR TLAUK.

¶23

4 P.K.SASI, AGED 52 YEARS, S/o NANI, GOLD SMITH, RESIDING AT PASHNATH HOUSE, PO KOTTAMURI, KURUVILASSERI VILLAGE, MALA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRICHUR.

¶24

5 P.K.SANIL, AGED 50, S/o NANI, GOLD SMITH, RESIDING AT PASHNATH HOUSE, PO KOTTAMURI, KURUVILASSERI VILLAGE, MALA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRICHUR.

¶25

6 P.K.SHYLAJA, AGED 46 YEARS, D/o NANI, TAILOR, RESIDING AT PANOLIKA PRAMBIL HOUSE, PO PADY, VELLIKULANGARA VILLAGE, MANGUTTY PADAM, KODALI, TRICHUR.

¶26

7 P.K.SHYJAN, AGED 44, S/o NANI, PAINTER, RESIDING AT PASHNATH HOUSE, PO KOTTAMURI, KURUVILASSERI VILLAGE, MALA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶27

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RFA No.22 of 2016

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the preliminary decree for

¶32

partition. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for appellants that there is no much dispute with respect to the entitlement of respective shares by the sharers covered by the preliminary decree. But, the property has to be located based on the survey record and document of title for effecting partition by metes and bounds in accordance with the preliminary decree. Final decree application is

¶33

now pending. A plan has to be drawn by deputing a Commissioner with the assistance of Surveyor so as to locate the property and to effect partition by metes and bounds. The trial court shall also explore the possibility of settlement between the parties and shall take into

¶34

consideration the suggestions, if any, made by the

¶35

respective counsel during the course of final decree. It is

¶36

submitted by both the counsel that the parties have

¶37

somewhat agreed to give up 30 cents of property to the

¶38

plaintiffs jointly and the balance extent will be

¶39

RFA No.22 of 2016 4

¶40

apportioned between the defendants. Hence, the appeal will

¶41

stand dismissed with the abovesaid observation. The trial court shall dispose of the matter within a time schedule of five months from the date of appearance of the parties, for which the parties shall appear before the trial court on 15.06.2022.

¶42

Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Lalitha P.N. v. C.P.Haridasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalitha P.N. v. C.P.Haridasan

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

Hemalatha Vs Devappa Naik

Smt.Hemalatha Vs Chandravathi

Ayisha Vs Mohammed

Veerankutty Vs Vasavan

Mrs.Mercy Simon Vs Mr.Joseph Martin @ Joy

Sidharthan Vs M.v.Karthikeyan