IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RSA.No. 651 of 2004() --------------------- AS.82/1999 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA OS.45/1998 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------- PADMANABHAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN, ASARIPARAMBIL, THURUTHIBHAGOM MURI, AROOKUTTY VILLAGE. (DIED) ADDL.APPELLANTS: 2.PADMANABHAN SAHADEVAN, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASARIPARAMBIL, NADUVATH NAGAR P.O., AROORKUTTY. 3.SAROJINI SURENDRAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL VEEDU, UDAYAMPEROOR, VAIKOM. ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 10.7.2007 IN I.A.NO.383/2007. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM SMT.CAROLIN SINDHU VAZ RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KUNJIPENNU PARVATHY CALLED PARU, NIKARTHIL HOUSE,PANAVALLY MURI, DO. VILLAGE FROM ASARIPARAMBIL, AROOKUTTY VILLAGE. 2. BHASKARAN, KANDOTH NIKARTHIL, THURUTHIBHAGAM MURI, AROOKUTTY VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.B.RAJEEV KOYICKAL FOR R2 SRI.J.OM PRAKASH FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.S.A.NO.651 OF 2004 (C) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Concurrent decision rendered in a suit for partition granting a preliminary decree declaring one half right of the respondent/plaintiff over the plaint property, is assailed in this appeal by the 1st defendant. Admittedly, the suit property belong to the father of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, who were born of two different wives. However, the claim of the plaintiff for partition was resisted by the appellant/1st defendant contending that she had released her right in his favour after accepting from him the value of her share in the property. The 1st defendant had executed Ext.A2 sale deed in respect of the plaint property in favour of the 2nd defendant asserting his absolute right over the suit property as if the plaintiff had released her one half right also in his favour as indicated above. In Ext.A2 sale deed, he had acknowledged the pre-existing right of the plaintiff over the suit property as one among the legal heirs of his father, but, with a R.S.A.NO.651/2004 2 further statement that she had released her share, for the value received, in his favour. Release of her right over the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant was disputed by the plaintiff, claiming her share over the suit property. Both the courts below on the materials placed, negatived the defence raised by the appellant/1st defendant to oppose the claim for partition canvassed by the plaintiff. Concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below that the plaintiff is entitled to one half right over the plaint property, under the preliminary decree passed in the suit, is challenged in the present appeal. 2. I heard the counsel for the appellant/1st defendant and also the respondent/plaintiff. The 2nd defendant, purchaser of the property from the 1st defendant under Ext.A2 sale deed, has remained absent even before the lower appellate court and as such, notice to him was dispensed with. The learned counsel for the appellant urged for setting aside the judgments rendered by the courts below and remitting the case for fresh consideration of the disputed questions involved to enable the appellant/1st R.S.A.NO.651/2004 3 defendant to lead additional evidence to substantiate his defence that the plaintiff had released her right over the suit property in his favour. 3. Perusing the judgments rendered by the courts below, I find though the appellant/1st defendant had taken such a defence, no material whatsoever was produced to substantiate the challenge so set up to resist the claim for partition. He has banked upon his self serving statement under Ext.A2 sale deed that the plaintiff had released her right over the suit property after collecting the value thereof from him. That statement, which has been disputed by the plaintiff, in the absence of any material whatsoever, has to be taken note of only for its rejection. Further more, interest over the immovable property having value of more than Rs.100/- can be transferred only by way of a registered document. Assertion by one of the parties that the release of the right of the other over the immovable property after collection of the value thereof, where its value is shown to be more than Rs.100/-, otherwise than under a R.S.A.NO.651/2004 4 registered document, is, prima facie, untenable and unacceptable. There is no question of law, leave alone any substantial question of law involved in this appeal, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp R.S.A.NO.651/2004 5