IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 196 of 2010 ----------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/03/2010 IN EP.NO. 222/08 IN OS.NO.120/1974 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT -II, KOZHIKODE) .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 7 & 8 IN E.P: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PREMARAJAN, S/O.KOLLOTH VENGALIL VALAPPIL NARAYANAN MENON, VALAYANAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. REMA, D/O.KOLLOTH VENGALIL VALAPPIL NARAYANAN MENON, VALAYANAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.P.S.NANDANAN, MR.P.N.ANOOP. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER IN E.P/14TH RESPONDENT IN FINAL DECREE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ M.C.DAKSHAYANI AMMA, D/O.KALLIANIKUTTY AMMA, NOW RESIDING AT VALAYANAD AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. MR. S. NIRMAL. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 196 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 16.3.2010 in E.P. No. 222 of 2006 in O.S. No.120 of 1974, respondents 7 and 8 before the court below have come up in revision. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they were available before the execution court. 2. In a suit for partition, preliminary decree was passed, in which reservation was made to the following effect: “But as far as Ext.B9 is concerned, defendants 3 to 5 have joined the assignment deed, and therefore as far as possible, the properties covered by Ext. B9 may be allotted to the share of defendant Nos. 3 to 5.” 3. Final decree was passed. Execution was taken out by the 12th defendant in the partition suit as E.P. 222 of 2008. She claimed the property allotted to CRP.196/2010. 2 defendants 3 to 5 in the suit. She sought for symbolic delivery. Respondents resisted the petition. However, on a consideration of the materials before the court and on the basis of the preliminary and final decree, the court below allowed the petition and ordered symbolic delivery. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein pointed out that the property had not been allotted to the petitioner and therefore the symbolic delivery ordered is unjust in law. It is also pointed out that they have raised several contentions and the court below has not considered the same. 5. The court below has considered the matter in detail and it has found that as per the preliminary decree there was a reservation, which has already been extracted. It is mentioned in the impugned order that the assignment deed in favour of the petitioner before the court below was upheld by the court and it is also seen mentioned that the first appeal and the Second Appeal from the preliminary CRP.196/2010. 3 decree were unsuccessful. It is also seen that the final decree was also challenged, that was also unsuccessful. 6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the property, regarding the same symbolic delivery was ordered in favour of the petitioner has been set apart to the share of defendants 3 to 5. There was a contention that the property has not been property identified. That was found against by the court below. It was found that the property has been properly identified and other sharers have taken delivery of their respective plots. The court below found no reason to reject the application. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order impugned. This Civil Revision Petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.