IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 RSA.NO. 1381 OF 2010() ---------------------- {IN AS.15/2008 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM OS.94/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR} .................... APPELLANT (S): APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------- C.N.SOMAN,S/O.NARAYANAN,RESIDING AT CHEMPOTHAYIL HOUSE,PERUMBAIKKADU.P.O, PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686028. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. KAMALAKSHIYAMMA,W/O.KUNJUPENNU, RESIDING AT CHERAMKULANGARA HOUSE, PERUMBAIKKATTUSSERY KARA,PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK-686028. 2. C.N.SUKUMARAN,S/O.NARAYANAN,RESIDING AT CHEMPOTHAYIL HOUE,PERUMBAIKKADU.P.O,PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 028. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- R.S.A.No.1381 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Plaintiff is the appellant. Concurrent decision, rendered in a suit for partition by the two courts below, holding that the plaintiff has no partible right in the property, and dismissing the suit, is challenged in this appeal. 2. Subject matter involved in the suit is 10 cents of property, which is described in the plaint under three schedules, but admittedly lying as a compact plot. There is no dispute that a major portion of the above property was purchased by the parents of the plaintiffs in their joint names under Ext.A1 deed expending their funds. The remaining 1 cent, and a well situate therein was later purchased by the 1st defendant, the mother of the plaintiff using her funds. The plaintiff's father also R.S.A.No.1381 of 2010 :: 2 :: released whatever right he had obtained under Ext.A1 deed in favour of his wife, 1st defendant. 3. Imputing that the plaint property is a joint family property and by birth he is entitled to a right over that property and also questioning Ext.A3 release deed executed by the father, the present suit for partition was filed seeking partition and separate allotment of his share. No evidence other than the self-serving evidence of the plaintiff examined as PW.1 was let in the case to show that the property obtained under Ext.A1 jointly by the parents in their names was a joint family property, as contended by the plaintiff. 4. The trial court, on the materials placed , finding no merit in the claim for partition by the plaintiff, dismissed his suit. The lower appellate court, after re- appreciating the materials, concurring with the finding entered by the trial court, negativing the challenges raised by the plaintiff/appellant, dismissed his appeal. R.S.A.No.1381 of 2010 :: 3 :: 5. Perusing the judgments rendered by the courts below, I find, there is no infirmity, leave alone any illegality in the conclusion formed by both the courts below that the plaintiff has no partible right in the suit property. The appeal does not involve any question of law, leave alone any substantial question of law and it is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.