IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).NO. 849 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------ OS.98/1992 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- MURALEEDHARAN NAIR,S/O.SANKARAN,AGED YEARS,PENNARA HOUSE,KADAPPATTOR KARA,MEENACHIL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR,CHAMAKKALYIL,VELLAPADU KARA,LALAM VILLAGE. 2. BHAVANIAMMA SANTHAKUMARI, CHAMAKKALYIL,VELLAPADU KARA,LALAM VILLAGE. 3. SARADA, CHAMAKKALYIL,VELLAPADU KARA,LALAM VILLAGE. 4. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, CHAMAKKALYIL,VELLAPADU KARA,LALAM VILLAGE. 5. RAJENDRAN, CHAMAKKALYIL,VELLAPADU KARA,LALAM VILLAGE. 6. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, CHAMAKKALYIL,VELLAPADU KARA,LALAM VILLAGE. 7. VENUGOPAL, CHAMAKKALYIL,VELLAPADU KARA,LALAM VILLAGE. 8. KUMARI RATHI, CHAMAKKALYIL,VELLAPADU KARA,LALAM VILLAGE. 9. GEETHA D.NAIR, CHAMAKKALYIL VELLAPADU KARA,LALAM VILLAGE. 10. LEKHA D.NAIR, CHAMAKKALYIL VELLAPADU KARA,LALAM VILLAGE. 11. ULLASUMON, CHAMAKKALYIL VELLAPADU KARA,LALAM VILLAGE. 12. MEENAKSHIAMMA,PENNARA HOUSE, KADAPPATTOR KARA,MEENACHIL VILLAGE. 13. KARTHYAYANIAMMA, PENNARA HOUSE,KADAPPATTOR KARA,MEENACHIL VILLAGE. 14. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, PENNARA HOUSE,KADAPPATTOR KARA,MEENACHIL VILLAGE. 15. MOHANAN, PENNARA HOUSE,KADAPPATTOR KARA,MEENACHIL VILLAGE. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.849 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Defendant No.4 in the final decree proceeding in O.S. No.98 of 1992 of the court of learned Munsiff, Pala is the petitioner before me aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8, orders. As per the preliminary and final decrees the suit property which is a building, (oldness of which is assessed by the Expert Commissioner - a Civil Engineer as 70 years) to be sold in auction and the sale proceeds to be shared among the sharers. The Expert Commissioner has submitted Ext.P5, report stating that plinth area of the building is 775 sq.ft., it is 70 years old and its useful life has expired. Expert Engineer was of the opinion that the structure has only salvage value. Present cost of construction of the building is assessed as `.6,50,000/- and original cost of the wood for making doors, windows, etc., was assessed as `.2,29,000/-. Considering the oldness and expiry of usefulness salvage value of the building was fixed as `.74,430/-. Petitioner filed Ext.P6, application to set aside the report stating that report lacks details. Exhibit P6, application was dismissed by Ext.P7, order and following that, O.P(C) No.849 of 2010 -: 2 :- learned Sub Judge as per Ext.P8, order fixed the upset price for public auction at `.75,000/- and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the auction. Exhibits P7 and P8 are under challenge. Learned counsel has reiterated arguments raised before the learned Sub Judge in this petition also. It is pointed out that it is only the salvage value that has been fixed by the Expert Engineer without stating value of the structure and its details. 2. It is true that full details of the structure are not available in Ext.P5, report. But fact remained that plinth area of the structure is only 775 sq.ft and it is 70 years old. When the Expert Commissioner who is a Civil Engineer stated in relation to a 70 year old structure having a total plinth area of 775 sq.ft that the usefulness of that structure is over and there is no reason to disbelieve that statement I must understand that the structure as it is, is not useful for any purpose. In other words it has become useless. It is in the circumstances that the Expert Commissioner has fixed the salvage value of the structure at `.74,430/-. I must also bear in mind that report of the Advocate Commissioner was obtained for fixing the upset price since public auction of the structure has been ordered. It is open to the sharers including O.P(C) No.849 of 2010 -: 3 :- petitioner or anybody else to bid the structure for any amount higher than the upset price fixed. I must also bear in mind that no attempt was made to examine the Expert Engineer to disprove the facts reported by him. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with Exts.P7 and P8, orders. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv