IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 RSA.NO. 596 OF 2009(D) ---------------------- {IN AS.170/2004 OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD IN OS.386/1994 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR} .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------------- P.SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.T.NANIKUTTY, THEKKEVEEDU, THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SAVITHRI AMMA, W/O.ANANTHAKRISHNAN, PADMA NIVAS, SREE MOORTHY NAGAR, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. PADMAKUMAR, S/O.SAVITHRI AMMA, RESIDING AT --DO--. 3. P.PADMAJA, W/O.NARESH KUMAR, BO/03PNT COLONY, SAIBABA COLONY, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU. 4. PADMARAJAN,S/O.ANANTHAKRISHNAN, PADMA NIVAS, SREE MOORTHY NAGAR, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR. 5. P.KUMAR @ UNNIKISHNAN,S/O.T.N.NANIKUTTY, PLOT NO.13, M.M.D.A.COLONY, ARUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI. RSA.NO. 596 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 6. P.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.P.NANIKUTTY AMMA, VILAKKATHALA VEEDU, GIRIJA NIVAS, NENMARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 7. ARUNDHATHI AMMA, W/O.LATE GANGADHARAN, GIRIJA VIHAR, NEAR BUS STAND, NENMARA POST, CHITTUR TALUK. 8. MURALI, S/O.ARUNDHATHI AMMA, --DO-.. 9. GIRIJA, D/O.ARUNDHADHI AMMA, -DO--. 10. HARIDAS, S/O.ARUNDHADHI AMMA, DEVI PAPER MART,MINI INDUSTRIES, MUNDAPPLLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 11. SANTHAKUMARI, W/O.LATE CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, 12-B, KASTHURBA STREETM UDUMALPET, TAMILNADU. 12. SASIDHARAN, S/O.LATE CHANDRASEKHARAN ---DO-. 13. GEETHA, D/O.LATE CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, ---DO---. R1 TO R4 ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA(CAVEATOR) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RSA.NO. 596 OF 2009 :: ORDER ON I.A.No.1307/09 IN RSA.NO. 596 OF 2009 DISMISSED. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) 07.09.2010. JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. To Judge. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.596 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT In the final decree passed in a suit for partition, the appellant/1st defendant had moved an application under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, seeking permission of the court to purchase the shares of other sharers. Admittedly, the appellant has only 1/9th share in the land having an extent of 5.11 cents. The plaintiffs have 4/9th shares. The application moved by the appellant, after consideration, was dismissed by the trial court. Against that order, he preferred a revision before this court. That revision was also dismissed. Having regard to the limited extent of the property and also the area that may be allotted in tune with the shares would render such property useless, the court below ordered for sale of the property as among the sharers. In R.S.A.No.596 of 2009 :: 2 :: such sale bidding for the highest price, the plaintiffs knocked down the property. The sale was also confirmed. An appeal, thereafter was preferred by the present appellant raising grounds that he could not appear on the date when the case was posted for sale of the property and, further, the assessment made by the advocate commissioner regarding the income and also the maintenance of the property was incorrect and not according to the settled principles applicable for determination thereof. That appeal was dismissed, and hence this second appeal. 2. The appellant did not substantiate any objection to the commission report, and no steps were taken even to examine the commissioner during the final decree proceedings. Further more, before the sale was confirmed by the court, which is stated to have been done on 5.4.2003, he did not move any application for setting aside the sale, for any ground whatsoever leave alone his absence on R.S.A.No.596 of 2009 :: 3 :: the date when the sale was conducted. The other ground raised that he should have been allowed to purchase the shares of other parties had already been advanced in his application moved under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act, and turned down by the trial court, and also later, in revision by this court.. In view of the finality attached declining the claim so made by the orders passed by this court, it cannot be set up to impeach the final decree passed by the court below. The appeal does not involve any question of law, leave alone any substantial question of law . Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//