IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2966 of 2008(C) -------------------------------- OS.114/2003 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ A.A.JAHFAR, S/O. AMBALAVAN ADIMANNIL CHEKKU HAJI, MATTATHOOR P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. MOHAMMED BASHEER, S/O. PARI MOHAMMEDKUTTY, KOLENKADAVATH HOUSE, P.O.MATTATHUR, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 528. 2. ABDUL KAREEM, -DO- -DO- 3. ASHRAF, -DO- -DO- 4. RASHEED, -DO- -DO- 5. SALEEM, -DO- -DO- 6. FATHIMA, D/O. KUNHI MAMMU HAJI, PALEMBADIYAN NEDUNKALATHIL, CHERUKUNNU P.O., PUTHOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 2966 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri whereby he has passed a supplemental preliminary decree with the following direction; “1. The petitioners and 4th defendant who were the defendants No.1 to 5 together are found entitled to get 10/20 shares of the decree schedule properties. 2. They are allowed to seek for allotment of shares during the final decree stage after remitting the required Court fee.” 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit before me that these persons have taken up a contention before the Court below that there was an oral partition and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Now, after the decree they want to get their shares from the property. A reading of the plaint itself would reveal that defendants 1 to 5 are entitled to half right over the property. W.P.C 2966 OF 2008 -:2:- It is an undisputed fact. So, there is no necessity to drive these parties again into another litigation and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for proper adjudication of the matter I feel the Court below was perfectly justified in passing a supplemental preliminary decree. But, I make it very clear that on the guise of the supplemental preliminary decree defendants 1 to 5 in the suit shall not be allowed to protract the final decree proceedings so as to deny the usufructs of the decree which is granted in favour of the plaintiff. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-