IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRP.No. 271 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/12/2008 IN IA 776/2007 IN OS.620/2004 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------- RADHA, D/O.BHARATHI, ANJILITHARAYIL, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.VINODKUMAR MR.T.C.SANTHILAL RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SARALA, D/O.BHARATHI, VALIYATHARAYIL, THOTTAKAM MURIYIL, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 2. JAYARAM, S/O.DAMODARAN, VALIYATHARAYIL, THOTTAKAM MURIYIL, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 3. SREEDEVI, D/O.BHARATHI, VAISHNAVATHIL, ERAMATTATHU ROAD, CHEMBUMUKKU, KAKKANAD NORTH, KOCHI-30. 4. SHOBHANA, D/O.BHARATHI, MANALELKAROTT VEETIL, APPANCHIRA MURIYIL, KADUTHURUTHI VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 5. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUMARAN, HOUSE NO.321, LIG COLONY, KATHRIKADAVU ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI. (CNTD...) CRP.No. 271 of 2009 -2- 6. T.K.JAYALAKSHMI, W/O.SIDDHARTHAN, INDEEVARAM, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, PANAVALLY MURI, CHERTHALA. 7. SREEJESH, S/O.SIDDHARTHAN, INDEEVARAM, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, PANAVALLY MURI, CHERTHALA. 8. SREECHAND, S/O.SIDDHARTHAN, INDEEVARAM, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, PANAVALLY MURI, CHERTHALA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 271 of 2009 ORDER ON I.A.NO.1021/2009 IN C.R.P.NO.271/2009 DISMISSED. 25.5.2009 SD/-S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.271 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Cherthala in I.A.No.776/2007 in O.S.No.620/2004 in which a preliminary decree was passed, and proceedings in the final decree are now pending. Petitioner's mother was the first defendant in the suit and she was allotted a share in the property covered by the suit. After passing of the preliminary decree, she had executed a will and thereby the petitioner is entitled to a share in the property allotted to her mother along with other legal heirs, is the case of the petitioner. She moved an application to set aside the preliminary decree already passed seeking a fresh preliminary decree allotting her share consequent to the death of her mother. Learned Munsiff dismissed that application as not maintainable, and correctness of that order is impeached in this revision petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. C.R.P.No.271 of 2009 2 3. From the submissions made and also statements made in the memorandum of revision petition it is seen that the petitioner seeks for passing a preliminary decree afresh, consequent to the death of her mother one of the defendants in the suit who was allotted a share in the preliminary decree passed by the court. She is now entitled to a share along with other legal heirs in the property allotted to the mother is the cause canvassed for the above relief. The preliminary decree already passed by the court is not liable to be set aside and fresh allotment cannot be made in respect of the shares/legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant. The petitioner has to seek appropriate proceedings to have her share in the property allotted to her mother, and the review petition moved by her was correctly found by the learned Munsiff as not entertainable. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-