IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 133 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.54/2009 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------------ SWAMINATHAN, S/O. LATE KANNAPPAN, PROPRIETOR, CHUTTICKAL BAKERY, ARAMANA, KOTHAGIRI, NILGIRI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT: --------------- KAMALAM @ NANI, W/O. RAJAN (LATE), NAVAKKODE HOUSE, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PIRAYIRI POST, PALAKKAD TALUK-678019. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.133 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Defendant No.14 in O.S.No.54 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Palakkad has filed this original petition challenging Ext.P5, order refusing to grant permission to the petitioner and defendant Nos.15 to 19 to put up what they called, a temporary shed in the property in respect of which partition is sought for. That application was opposed by plaintiffs and other contesting defendants by Ext.P4, objection. Learned Munsiff has dismissed that application vide Ext.P5, order. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel states that petitioner and defendant Nos.15 to 19 may be permitted to put up temporary structure without their making any claim for reservation or other equity at the time of division of property in case the suit is decreed. 2. Learned Munsiff has observed in Ext.P5, order that the suit itself is ripe for trial and that in respect of 70 cents, (going by the averments in plaint) there are 27 sharers and that allotment if made to the petitioner and defendant Nos.15 to 19 is only a nominal share. It is also pointed out by learned Munsiff O.P(C).No.133 of 2010 : 2 : that so far as defendant Nos.15 to 19 are concerned they have no need to construct such structures since defendant Nos.18 and 19 are residing with their husbands in their matrimonial homes and defendant No.15 has 25 cents and house adjascent to the suit property which is given on rent and he is residing at Kothagiri. According to the petitioner, they were residing in the property and the shed collapsed. But the Advocate Commissioner has reported that there was basement in the property. Learned Munsiff was not impressed by the claim of petitioner and others to put up temporary structure in the property. True, petitioner and defendant Nos.15 to 19 do not admit that they are co-owners along with plaintiff and others and they assert title for themselves but, that is a matter to be decided after trial. As it is the plaint averments are that parties in the suit are co-owners and the property is liable to be divided among them. One or some among co-owners cannot put up structures in the co-ownership property without the consent of others. Original petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-