IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 RSA.No. 85 of 2010() -------------------- AS.72/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THALASSERY OS.70/1994 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1 ------------------------------------------------------- PANDARA VALAPPIL GOVINDAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, KARAT, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PANDARA VALAPPIL PARU, W/O.KOTTAN, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, KARAT, P.O.EZHILODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. PANDARA VALAPPIL KARTHIYANI, D/O.KOTTAN, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, KARAT, P.O.EZHILODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. PANDARA VALAPPIL SAROJINI, D/O.KOTTAN, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, KARAT, P.O.KOZHILODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. PANDARA VALAPPIL KANNAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, EZHILODE P.O., CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, KARAT (DIED). 5. CHORAN VASANTHA, W/O.PANDARA VALAPPIL KANNAN, (LATE), KARAT, EZHILODE, P.O.KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. PANDARA CHORAN SHYMA, D/O.LATE KANNAN, EZHILODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 7. PANDARA CHORAN SHYNI, D/O.KANNAN (LATE), AGED 15 YEARS (MINOR), REP.BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER CHORAN VASANTHA, W/O.LATE KANNAN, P.O.EZHILODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.S.A. No. 85 of 2010 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The Second Appeal is directed against the final decree passed in O.S.No.70/1994. 2. The decree in O.S.No.70/1994 was passed on 14-10- 1996. An application for final decree was moved by defendants 2, 3 and 4 in the suit. Final decree was passed on 24-02-2000. An appeal was filed which was disposed of by the lower appellate court. The matter was brought up before this Court. For technical reasons, this Court had to allow the appeal and remanded to the lower appellate court. After remanded to the lower appellate court, it has passed the present order which is assailed before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant complaints about unfairness and inequality in the allocation of the properties to the petitioner before the court below. According to the learned counsel, the valuation made is unequal and unfair and the building should not have allotted to him. 4. There is absolutely no merit in the above said RSA.85/2010 : 2 : contentions. A perusal of the trial court judgment while passing the final decree shows that the appellant had filed an application to set aside the Commissioner's report. That was dismissed with the observation by the trial court that there is no attempt from the side of the respondents to substantiate their contentions that the Commissioner's report was not acceptable and that the allocation recommended by the Commissioner was unequal and unfair. In the absence of any evidence to show that the objection filed was justifiable, the trial court had no other option but to accept the Commissioner's report. Doing so, the final decree was passed. After remanded, the lower appellate court again considered the objection raised by the appellant. 5. In fact, a reading of the lower appellate court judgment shows that only three contentions were raised by the appellant. Two of them were with reference to the valuation and one was with reference to the allocation of the plot to the petitioner by the court below. 6. The lower appellate court found that the allotment given to the first petitioner in the final decree application was not on the basis of the Commissioner report but also the fact that she RSA.85/2010 : 3 : was seen residing in a hut in that property. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that on the basis of the Commissioner report it could not have been allotted has no basis. 7. The lower appellate court has also considered the objections regarding the valuation and has given reasons as to why no interference was called for with the valuation made by the trial court. No convincing reasons are placed before this Court to interfere with the allocation made. One cannot be omitted to note that the suit was filed in the year 1994 and decree was passed in 1996 and final decree was passed in the year 2000. Ten years have been elapsed. Moreover, there is nothing to show any inequality or unfairness in allotment of different shares. There is no merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. (P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE) aks