IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 447 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN AS.200/1995 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------- A.P.SREEDHARI SIVA RAJ, D/O.DR.A.P.KUMARAN, 31/101/M.D.MENON'S COMPOUND, WEST NADAKKAV, CALICUT. BY ADVS.MR.T.SETHUMADHAVAN MR.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH MR.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 & 8 TO 10/DECEASED (R1&R7 DIED) ------------------------- LRS. OF DECEASED R1:- ---------------------------------- 1. A.P.RAJASEKHARAN, DEEPAK BHAVAN, NEW MAHE. 2. A.P.NALINI, EMPLOYED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL RANGE INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADRAS-92. 3. A.P.RAJA RATNAM, KUMARAMANDIRAM, CHIRAKKARA P.O., THALASSERY. 4. A.P.CHANDRI, KUMARA MANDIRAM, CHIRAKKARA P.O., THALASSERY. 5. A.P.SATHY, KUMARAMANDIRAM, CHIRAKKARA P.O., THALASSERY. RP. NO.447/2009 LRS OF DECEASED R7. ----------------------------------- 6. C.RADHAKRISHNAN, 3/231, `UPASANA', WEST NADAKKAVU, CALICUT-675 011. 7. C.RAMACHANDRAN, DO. DO. 8. C.USHA RAJALAKSHMI, DO. DO. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- R.P.NO.447 OF 2009 in A.S.NO.200 OF 1995 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 O R D E R This review petition is preferred against the judgment passed by me in A.S.No.200/1995. It was against a final decree for partition and the subject matter of the appeal was regarding interchangeability of two items rather two plots and also regarding divisibility of the mother's share which remained as un-allotted share. After considering the entire materials, I found that so far it relates to the interchangeability, even if the interchangeability is done there will be a grievance for the parties to whom it is alloted and the railway line is on the side of the property to whom so ever it is alloted. So, considering the longevity of the litigation and with an earnest effort to put an end to the litigation, I did not interfere with the interchangeability and disallowed the prayer. It needs no interference. The next question is with respect to the allotment of 3.789 cents of land which was set apart as Plot No.4. The 2 R.P.NO.447/09 plaintiff is entitled to one out of six shares and the defendants are entitled to the remaining shares. Since the other is a group and they wanted to consolidate the allotment, I felt it proper that the value of the property can be fixed at Rs. One lakh per cent and directed the defendants to pay Rs.60,000/= to the plaintiff and for which the defendants share had been made as a charge. So, I feel the division was done by me in the most equitable way possible and I do not find any error on the face of the record or any ground as envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Cr.P.C to review my earlier judgment. Therefore, the review petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 3 R.P.NO.447/09 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- R.P.NO.447 OF 2009 in A.S.NO.200 OF 1995 ------------------------------ 28th day of July, 2009 O R D E R