IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 SA.No. 9 of 1999(A) -------------------------- AS.105/1998 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.552/1980 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): .APPELLANTS/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF/6TH DEFENDANT/ ---------------------- - 5TH RESPONDENT. 1. VERONICA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. ALAPPAT FRANCIS, RESIDING AT PULLANIKKAD ANGADI, WADAKKANCHERY VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. FRANCIS, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. LATE ALAPPAT ANTONY, RESIDING AT PULLANIKKAD ANGADI, WADAKKANCHERY VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN SMT.K.MEERA 1ST RESPONDENT(S): .2ND RESPONDENT.3RD DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GRACY, PENSIONER, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O. LATE ALAPPAT MANIPALLU DEVASSY, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA DESOM, PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 2. MINI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, D/O. LATE ALAPPAT MANIPPALU DEVASSY, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA DESOM, PERINGAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 3. MINTO, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, SALESMAN, S/O. LATE ALAPPAT MANIPPALU DEVASSY, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA DESOM, PERINGAVU VILLAGE , THRISSUR. S.A. NO.9/1999 4. ANTHONY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O. LATE ALAPPAT ANTONY, RESIDING NEAR KURUSUPALLI, MUKKATTUKARA DESOM, NETTISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN BY ADV. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- SA No.9 of 1999-A ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January 2011 Judgment Aggrieved by the concurrent findings by the courts below, the plaintiff and the 6th defendant in OS No.552/80, a suit for partition, have come up in appeal before this court. The suit is of the year 1980. 2. The preliminary decree was passed on 04.08.1984 whereby it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to get partition and separate possession of her ½ share in the plaint schedule property. Pursuant to the passing of the preliminary decree, IA No.1033/85 was filed for passing the final decree. A commissioner was deputed and the commissioner has filed Exts.C1 to C4 reports and plans. The trial court accepted Exts.C3 and C4 and passed the final decree. Aggrieved, the plaintiff took up the matter in appeal as AS No.105/98 before the District Court, Thrissur. 3. The District Court, after an elaborate SA 9/1999 2 consideration of the objections raised by the plaintiff and after going through the entire evidence and materials on record, came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no bona fides in any of the contentions raised by the plaintiff. The lower appellate court found that the attempt of the plaintiff was only to protract the proceedings and to harass the respondents before it. The lower appellate court was compelled to observe so in view of the fact that no amount of concession for the other side found favour with the plaintiff. 4. In the second appeal, the very same contentions which were raised before the lower appellate court were raised. All those contentions have been dealt with in detail by the lower appellate court and there is nothing to show that the finding of the lower appellate court are either fallacious or unwarranted by the evidence on record. The main contention raised in the second appeal was regarding the extent of land, value of the building, nature of allotment etc. It may at once be noticed that in a SA 9/1999 3 civil revision petition before this court, it was directed that the house building was set apart to the respondents herein. In accordance with that direction, the house was allotted to the respondents. Even though several grounds are raised against the commissioner's report and plan, it is found that there was no attempt to substantiate those contentions. That shows the indifferent attitude of the plaintiff and clearly shows that her only attempt was to protract the proceedings. Both the courts below, on the basis of the commissioner's report and plan and the evidence on record, passed the final decree in terms of the preliminary decree. The findings are essential questions of fact based on evidence on record and do not warrant interference by this Court. No substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed with costs to the contesting respondents. P.Bhavadasan, Judge SA 9/1999 4 sta SA 9/1999 5