IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21088 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER ON IA NO.4568/2010 IN IA 3678 /2007 IN OS.75/2003 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SURENDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. PALIYATH KIZHAKKEVEETTIL DEVAKY AMMA, AND LATE KRISHNA MENON, RESIDING AT PALIYATH HOUSE,THAIKKAD VILLAGE, THALIKKAD DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, GURUVAYOOR-682 101. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PADMINI VENUGOPAL, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O. PALIYATH KIZHAKKEVEETTIL DEVAKY AMMA, AND LATE KRISHNA MENON,THAIKKAD VILLAGE, THALIKKAD DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK AND W/O.VENUGOPAL, RESIDING AT 5D ANJAM APARTMENTS, CHITTOOR ROAD, IYYATTUMUKKU, COCHIN-682 011. 2. RUKMINI BALAKRISHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O. PALIYATH KIZHAKKEVEETTIL DEVAKY AMMA, AND LATE KRISHNA MENON,THAIKKAD VILLAGE, THALIKKAD DESOM, CHA VAKKAD TALUK AND W/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 48 A-JAIDARSHAN, NAPEAN SEA ROAD, MUMBAI- 400 036. ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN SMT.A.SREEKALA (VAIKOM) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.21088/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY DECREE DATED 27.11.2006 IN OS 75/2003 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN IA 3678/2007 IN OS 75/2003 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT DATED 13.1.2010 SUBMITTED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER N IA NO.3678/2007 IN OS 75/2003 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM REPORT DATED 24.5.2010 IN IA 3678/2007 IN OS 75/2003 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN IA NO.4568/2010 IN IA 3678/2007 IN OS 75/2003 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA 4568/2010 IN IA 3678/2007 IN OS 75/2003 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR. //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21088 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Respondents appear through counsel. 2. Order dated 22.06.2010 on I.A.No.4568 of 2010 in I.A.No.3678 of 2007 in O.S.No.75 of 2003 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur is under challenge. According to the petitioner as per final decree right to demolish the building was ordered to be auctioned before division of land by metes and bounds and if that is done petitioner would become homeless as he is residing in the building situated in the decree schedule property. He therefore requested that before the building is demolished decree schedule property may be divided among sharers as directed in the final decree. I have heard learned counsel for respondents as well. 3. As per final decree property is to be divided among petitioner and respondents equally. Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and reported that there is an old building in the property but there is no taker for the said building. Hence it was suggested that building may be auctioned. Since there was no purchaser for the said building court directed that building may be demolished. WP(C) No.21088/2010 2 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that if the building is demolished before the decree schedule property is divided as directed in the final decree, petitioner will have no place to reside. It is agreed to by counsel on both sides that to avoid further disputes, court below can be directed to auction the right to demolish the old building in the decree schedule property among sharers and, the devision of the land as per the final decree can also be done simultaneously. Resultantly this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines: i. Impugned order to the extent it concerned demolition of the building is set aside. ii. It is directed that the court shall conduct auction of right for demolition of the building among sharers as provided under Rule 234 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Simultaneously therewith, the decree schedule property also shall be divided as directed in the final decree among the sharers by the Advocate Commissioner. iii. It is made clear that demolition of the building shall be done only after finalisation of the division among sharers. WP(C) No.21088/2010 3 iv. Executing court shall expedite the proceedings. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks