IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 325 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN AS.387/1997 Dated 05/10/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAVITHRY ANDHARJANAM, W/O.LATE KODAKKATTILATH, CHERIYA SANKARAN MOOSAD, D/O.RAMAN MOOSAD 2. VASUNNI ALIAS SANKARAN MOOSAD, S/O.SAVITHRY ANDHARJANAM, 3. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.SAVITHRY ANDHARJANAM. 4. RAJAN, S/O.SAVITHRY ANDHARJANAM 5. RAVEENDRAN (DEAD) S/O.SAVITHRY ANDHARJANAM 6. SURESHAN, S/O.SAVITHRY ANDHARJANAM 7. VALSALA, D/O.SAVITHRY ANDHARJANAM BY ADV. MR.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------- LEELA ALIAS DEVAKIKUTTY, D/O.LATE KODAKKATTILLATH CHERIYA SANKARAN MOOSAD, NELLIKODE AMSOM KOVOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. MR.T.SETHUMADHAVAN MR.O.T.JABISH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ R.P.No.325 Of 2010 in A.S.No.387 of 1997 ---------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010. O R D E R The appellants in A.S.No.387 of 1997 on the file of this Court are the review petitioners. Trial court passed a decree holding that plaint items 1 & 4 will be partitioned in to 40 equal shares and the plaintiff will be allotted 10/40 shares in item No.1, 5/40 shares in item No.4 and other consequential reliefs. This Court in appeal re-appreciated the evidence and held that the contentions raised by the review petitioners challenging the decree and judgment passed by the court below are not sustainable. The appeal was dismissed confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners contended that the plaint schedule property being a thavazhi property, the subsequently born members in the thavazhi were also sharers in the property that the share allotted to the plaintiff is not correctly made by the trial court and therefore wrongly confirmed by the R.P.No.325 Of 2010 ::2:: appellate court. According to the learned counsel, subsequently born members in the thavazhi of the Illam also get a share in the property until 1976 i.e., when the Joint Hindu Family Abolition Act came into force. It is also submitted that the 1st respondent/plaintiff will not get 10/40 shares, if the law is applied correctly. 3. It is not disputed that the plaintiff in the suit is one of the sharers, who got allotment in 1957 partition deed. In 1957 certain properties were allotted to 5 members together including the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff's father and sister died. Their share devolved on plaintiff and other family members. Therefore, the plaintiff sought division of her share in the plaint schedule properties. The division was made by the trial court and the same was confirmed by the appellate court. The contentions raised that it is a thavazhi allotment and therefore subsequently born children are also entitled to get share in the property and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to get 10/40 shares cannot be accepted and is unsustainable in law. The very same contention were heard and decided by this Court. The R.P.No.325 Of 2010 ::3:: entitlement of share of parties to the suit was decided applying the evidence and law. The matter was again heard in detail. Learned counsel for the review petitioner strained hard to convince the court that the allotment of share to the plaintiff is excessive. The contentions are legally unsustainable. No grounds are made out to review the judgment. In the result, review petition fails and accordingly, dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-