IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 308 of 2008() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/01/2008 IN IA 1969/06, 46/1999 IN OS.103/1997 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONERS/PERITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1,2,3,5 & 7: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LAKSHMIKUTTY APPASSI, D/O.VARODE KANGATH LATE NANIKUTTY APPASSI, ANGHADI AMSOM AND ARIKKAD DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. SULOCHANA, D/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY APPASSI, ANGHADI AMSOM AND ARIKKAD DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 3. SURESH, S/O.SULOCHANA, ANGHADI AMSOM AND ARIKKAD DESOM,OTTAPALAM TALUK. 4. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KANGATH LATE KESAVAN NAMBIAR, ORAPULLY HOUSE, PAZHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 5. VIJAYA, D/O. -DO- AND MADHAVI AMMA, ORAPULLY HOUSE, PAZHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN (PALAKKAD) SRI.SAJU.S.A SR. ADV. T.KRISHNANUNNI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & D6: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THANKAMANI, S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY APPISSI, ANGHADI AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. SANJAY KUMAR, S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY APPISSI, ANGHADI AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. ] 3. SUDHIR, S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY APPISSI, ANGHADI AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 4. RATHEESH, S/O. LAKSHMIKUTTY APPISSI, ANGHADI AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 5. SANKARANARAYANAN, S/O.LATE MADHAVI AMMA ORAPPULLY HOUSE, PAZHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P.No. 308 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008. = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order in I.A.No.1969/06 in I.A.No.46/99 in O.S.No.103/97. It is an application filed for review by defendants 1,3,5 and 7 of the final decree. Plaintiffs have entered appearance through a counsel and they made me available a copy of the final decree. It is seen from paragraph 2 that when the matter came up for hearing, both sides conceded for accepting the report with some modifications as suggested by them that the 1st defendant mother to reside in the house of the plaintiff. The court accepted it and closed by passing a final decree in the suit. 2. Learned counsel submitted before me that it was not a concession made by the counsel. But the concession was with respect to the residence of the mother and not of allotment of shares. The court below after considering the matter held that such a concession was made and therefore declined to interfere with the earlier order. This is all what had transpired before a C.R.P.No. 308 OF 2008 2 lower court and sitting in the revisional jurisdiction this court cannot interfere with order of the court below. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the house was alloted to the share of plaintiffs for the reason that the defendants had a separate house of their own and therefore pursuant to the same the allotment of a house to the plaintiffs cannot be considered as a mistake. Therefore I decline to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The civil revision petition is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE bkn/-