IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 RSA.No. 632 of 2010(A) --------------------------------- [AS.NO.22/2006 OF SUB COURT, HOSDRUG, OS.NO.300/1999 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, HOSDRUG] .................... APPELLANT/9TH DEFENDANT/9TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ KANNYADIL RUGMINI,AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.NARAYANAI,RESIDING AT KUTTAMMATH, CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, P.O CHERUVATHOOD, HOSDURG. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN. RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 8 AND 10 TO 22/APPELLANT/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 AND 10 TO 22: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.DAMODARAN (48 YEARS),S/O.LAGE RAMA PODUVAL AND KANNYADI MANIKKAM, NOW RESIDING AT 'SREESAILAM'HOUSE,KUTTIYATHOOR VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,CHATTUKAPARA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KANNYADI KAMMARAN NAIR(DEAD), S/O.KAMMARAN NAIR AND LATE KANNYADIL UCHIRA AMMA, KANNYADIL HOUSE,KUTTAMMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 3. KANNYADI NARAYANI,AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 4. KANNYADAN KUNHIRAMAN,AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.KANNYADIL UCHIRA AMMA, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 5. KANNYADIL NARAYANAN, (DEAD) AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.KANNYADI UCHIRA AMMA, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. R.S.A. NO. 632/2010-A: 6. KANNYADIL KRISHNAN,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE KANNYADIL MANIKKAM, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,P.O CHERUVATHOOR. 7. KANNYADIL MURALIDHARAN,AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANI, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 8. KANNYADIL RAMACHANDRAN (DEAD), S/O.NARAYANI, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, P.O CHERUVATHOOR,HOSDURG TALUK. 9. KANNYADIL GOPALAKRISHNAN,AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANI, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, P.O CHERUVATHOOR,HOSDURG TALUK. 10. KANNYADIL SURENDRAN,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANI, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, P.O CHERUVATHOOR,HOSDURG TALUK. 11. K.KARTHIYANI,AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, P.O CHERUVATHOOR,HOSDURG TALUK. 12. K.ASHOKAN,AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.KANNYADIL GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, P.O CHERUVATHOOR,HOSDURG TALUK. 13. K.VANAJA,AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.KANNYADIL GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, P.O CHERUVATHOOR,HOSDURG TALUK. 14. K.AJITHA,AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.KANNYADIL GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, P.O CHERUVATHOOR,HOSDURG TALUK. 15. E.V.RATNAKARAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE KAMMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KUTTAMATH,CHERUVATHOOR VILLAGE, P.O CHERUVATHOOR. 16. P.THANKAMANI, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.LATE KAMMARAN NAIR, AND W/O.KARUNAKARAN.P., RESIDING AT CHERAPURAM, P.O.NILESHWAR. 17. P.MADHUSOODHANAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE KAMMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHERUVATHOOR KOVVAL, P.O.CHERUVATHOOR. R.S.A. NO. 632/2010-A: 18. PARVATHI AMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE KAMMARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHERUVATHOOR KOVVAL, P.O.CHERUVATHOOR. 19. NAVEEN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR, HEAD CONSTABLE, C/O.OMANA, RESIDING AT SANKARA NARAYANAPURAM POLICE QUARTERS, P.O.SANKARA NARAYANAPURAM, (VIA) KUNTHAPURAM, SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 20. NITHIN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR, HEAD CONSTABLE, C/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, KARIKURUMBA, B.C.ROAD, P.O.B.C.ROAD, SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE. 21. OMANA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT SANKARA NARAYANAPURAM POLICE QUARTERS, P.O.SANKARA NARAYANAPURAM, (VIA) KUNTHAPURAM, SOUTH CANARA, KARNATA STATE. 22. VARUN, AGED 10 YEARS, MINOR SON OF LATE RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR, HEAD CONSTABLE, AND OMANA, RESIDING AT SANKARA NARAYANAPURAM POLICE QUARTERS, P.O.SANKARA NARAYANAPURAM, (VIA) KUNTHAPURAM, SOUTH CANARA, KARNATA STATE. 23. T. JANAKI AMMA, NEAR PONMALAM TEMPLE, CHERVATHUR.P.O., PILICODE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, (LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED K. NARAYANAN – B5), WHO DIED AFTER PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT. BY THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- RSA No.632 of 2010-A ------------------------------------- Dated 5th August 2010 Judgment This appeal can be disposed of on a very short ground. The order impugned is a remand order. OS No.300/99 before the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg, was one for partition. The suit was dismissed. An appeal was filed as AS No.22/06 before the Sub Court, Hosdurg. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and passed an order, which reads as follows : “In the result, the appeal is allowed. Decree of the Trial Court is set aside. Suit is remanded to the Trial Court with the following directions :- a) Trial Court shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to plead the correct derivation of shares until the filing of suit, which shall not be later than a period of two months from today. b) If necessary, further time will be granted by the Trial Court to the appellant for addressing pleadings in this regard as it deems fit. c) Thereafter, Trial Court shall determine the correct fractional share to which the appellant and other defendants who had paid court fee, are entitled to. RSA 632/10 2 d) Trial Court shall also consider the plea of 9th respondent regarding improvements purportedly effected in the suit property by herself and D1 and her entitlement for value thereof, in the light of the fact that she is a co-owner of the property. e) Respondent herein and other contesting parties shall also be afforded an opportunity to address further pleadings and evidence in the light of amended pleadings, if any and further evidence tendered by the appellant. f) Parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 22.3.2010. g) Considering the circumstance, parties are to suffer their respective costs. h) Return the lower court records forthwith.” 2. A reading of the above order shows that it is an open remand and there is no conclusive determination of rights of parties as such, by the lower Appellate Court, amounting to a decree. The learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to a finding entered into by the first Appellate Court, which according to the learned counsel, is final. But, it is well settled that an appeal will not lie against a finding and it will only lie against a decree. So, reserving the liberty of the appellant to pursue such remedies as are available to him under law, RSA 632/10 3 this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The copy of the Judgment produced by the appellant, shall be returned to him forthwith. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RSA 632/10 4