IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 63 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 173/07 IN OS.124/2001 of SUB COURT, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST RESPONDENT IN IA 173/07: ---------------------------------------------- V.S.OMANA, AGED 58, W/O.KUNJAPPAN, VALIYAPURAKKAL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER IN IA 173/07 --------------------------------------------- 1. PARAMESHWARAN, AGED 61, S/O.KESHAVAN, KOLETHARA, EDAPALLY NORTH, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS/ 2 TO 5 RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 IN IA 173/07 2. V.S.BABY, AGED 55, S/O.SHANKARAN, VEMPILLY HOUSE, EDAVANAKKADU, ERNAKULAM. 3. V.S.MOHANAN, AGED 48, S/O.SHANKARAN, VEMPILLY HOUSE, EDAVANAKKADU, ERNAKULAM. 4. V.S.THAMPI, AGED 46, S/O.SHANKARAN, VEMPILLY HOUSE, EDAVANAKKADU, ERNAKULAM. 5. V.S.ANILKUMAR, AGED 40,S/O.SHANKARAN, VEMPILLY HOUSE, EDAVANAKKADU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 200/08 IN C.R.P 63/08 DISMISSED 18.3.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 63 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kochi, in IA 173/07 in OS 124/01. The brief facts would reveal that the revision petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to one out of five shares and the respondents/defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to four out of five shares. The property having an extent of six cents had been purchased by the petitioner in IA 173/07 from the defendants, who are entitled to four out of five shares in the property. What the court below has directed is that as the defendants together are entitled to 24.100 cents of land and as the property purchased by the petitioner is only six cents, the direction is given to the Commissioner to allot those six cents purchased by the petitioner to the share of the defendants so that he will get right over the property and that the possession need not be disturbed since the plaintiff is only having one out of five shares in the property in spite of sale. Since 24 cents are reportedly available there, this mode of equitable allotment will not prejudice the plaintiff as well. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention that the order is incorrect. It is strictly in accordance with law. The civil revision petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Since I am dismissing the revision petition at the admission stage itself, notice to 2nd respondent, who is dead, need not be further pursued. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. No. 63/08 2