IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 Ex.FA.No. 4 of 2010(A) ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/06/2009 IN EA 1072/04 IN EP 655/97 IN OS.118/1975 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... (S): APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- VENUGOPALAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.PADASSERY KARTHYAYANI AMMA, VENKDANGU AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SMT.K.NANDINI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.V.SIVASANKARAN, 400/9H, IST MAIN ROAD, RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. 2. AMMUKUTTY AMMA (DIED) D/O. MEENAKSHI AMMA, KUDUNGAL VEEDU, MARUTHYOOR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 3. VIJAYANUNNI PANICKER @ VIJAYAN S/O. 2ND RESPONDENT. 4. THANKAM NARENDRAN, TEACHER, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, PATTASSERY, PALAKKAD P.O. CHETHANPADI. 5. PADMAVATHY, D/O. 2ND RESPONDENT, RESIDING WITH 2ND RESPONDENT 6. BALACHANDRAN , S/O. 2ND RESPONDENT RESIDING WITH 2ND RESPONDENT 7. VENKIDA SUBRAMANIAN P.V., ADVOCATE, KASHMIR ROAD, P.O. PAVARATTY, THRISSUR. 8. GEETHANJALI, W/O.KRISHNAN, CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TELEPHONES) KERALA CIRCLE E-5, BARTON HILLS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9.VARADARAJ IYER, SPECIAL JUDGE, VIGILANCE, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN FOR CAVEATOR(R7) THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------- Ex.F.ANo.4 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed against the order in E.A.1072/04 in O.S.118/1975. A poor pathetic plight of a civil litigant is classically established by a case of this nature. The suit, which was filed in 1975 and decreed in the year 1980 by the first court, had now traveled 30 years more and by the intervention of this court on an earlier occasion, the property at last had been delivered to the decree holder on 4.8.2009 and it has been recorded on 10.8.2009. 2. The claimant is a legal representative of one Padminiamma. This Padminiamma moved a case to set aside the partition of the year 1932 and also for injunction, that case was dismissed and the present claimant is claiming right under Padminiamma by virtue of a will executed by her. If at all there is any remedy that would have been obtained only by obtaining a decree to set aside the partition deed of 1932. But the said suit is Ex.F.A.No.4/2010 2 ended in dismissal and therefore Padminiamma did not succeed in establishing her right. It could be also seen that after the death of Padminiamma, all her legal heirs were impleaded and the second plaintiff therein is the petitioner herein. 3. So, therefore, with all of them on record an adjudication had been effected the question of further approaching the court as a claimant really did not arise at all. Further it as discussed by the court below, there are absolutely no materials to move the claim. He had not even attempted to mount the box to adduce evidence and the documents relied on had not been produced. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the court below and everything is in order and therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE) sou.