IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7654 of 2008(J) ------------------------- I.A.No.7953/07 IN OS.312/1998 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. GOPINATH SHENOY, S/O.LATE VAMANA SHENOY, AIKKARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KALOOR, KATHRIKADAVU, KOCHI-17. 2. RAJAGOPALA SHENOY, S/O.LATE VAMANA SHENOY, AIKKARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KALOOR, KATHRIKADAVU, KOCHI - 17. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.G.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KANAKAM VAMANA SHENOY, W/O.LATE VAMANA SHENOY, AGED 69, AIKKARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 2. SOBHA VINOD, D/O.LATE VAMANA SHENOY, AIKKARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 7654 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the court below whereby it has passed a supplemental final decree in the light of the directions of this court in WPC 16016/07. This court in the light of the Apex court decision in Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad [2007 (2) SCC 355] held that there could be more than one final decree. After analysing the factual matrix available, this court held that the Commissioner who had gone and inspected the property divided the property as DEF&G schedules and C schedule pathway. D and F Schedule properties were suggested to be allotted to the defendants and E and G to the plaintiffs. C schedule property is a common pathway for all parties. Pursuance to the final decree, the plaintiffs had taken possession of E and G plots. Therefore this court held that by passing of a supplemental decree allotting D and F,Schedule properties to the defendants will not cause any hardship and in order to avoid the multiplicity that was ordered to be done. The court has passed final decree strictly in WPC NO 7654/08 2 accordance with the terms of the order passed by me earlier. Now the attempt is to contend that others are causing some obstruction with respect to the C schedule pathway. It is a matter that has to be independently considered resorting to appropriate legal proceedings. Nothing can be done in this matter. Therefore, the writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 7654/08 3 WPC NO 7654/08 4