IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 SA.No. 790 of 1999(B) ----------------- AS.483/1994 of SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA OS.802/1983 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT / APPELLANT / 1ST DEFENDANT : ------------------------------------------------------------------- KOCHAN NADAR KRISHNANTHAMPI NADAR, LEKSHMI NIVAS, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR PAKUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT / PLAINTIFF : ---------------------------------------------------------------- KOCHAN NADAR KOCHAPPAN, CHERUPARA MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, VILAPPIL DESOM, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, HAVING ALSO KALLUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR PAKUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- SA.No. 790 of 1999(B) -2- ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 2172/1999 IN SA. NO. 790/1999 DISMISSED 18/01/2011 SD/- P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No.790 of 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT The first defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant. 2. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the case since the controversy before this court falls within a narrow compass. 3. The appellant claims that it was he who had put up the building in plaint A schedule property and the courts below have erred in not providing reservation of that building in favour of the appellant at the time of partition. This is the only grievance. 4. It is not in dispute that the property is partible. Since there is considerable evidence to show that the building was put up by the first defendant, it is only just and reasonable to direct the court below that while passing the final decree, as far as possible and on S.A.790/1999. 2 equitable grounds, every effort shall be made to allot that share of the property in which the building situate to the first defendant. With this observation, this second appeal is closed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.