IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 RFA.No. 245 of 2011() --------------------- OS.947/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/3RD DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------- SATHYANANDHAN, S/O. MANOHARAN, AGED 42 YEARS, PULLORTHUNIYIL HOUSE, UDHAYA ROAD, TAHIKUDAM P.O., VYTTILA. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.K.V.BINOD RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1, 2 & 4: ----------------------------------------------- 1. JAYASHREE SANTHOSH, AGED 39 YEARS, PADMAVILAS, WEST KUNDANOOR, U.C. P.O., ALUVA, PIN-683 102. 2. SAJAMMA, W/O. MANOHARAN, AGED 52 YRS, MANU NIVAS, LPS ROAD, PALLI NADA, THAMMANAM P.O., PIN-682 032. 3. RAJAMMA, W/O. BABY, AGED 50 YEARS, ELANJIKOOTIL, NADAKAVU P.O., UDAYAMPEROOR, PIN-682 307. 4. SEEMA MAHESH, AGED 36 YEARS, KUDILALPARAMBIL HOUSE, FAC ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682 019. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- R.F.A.NO.245 OF 2011 (A) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The 3rd defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant. He propounded a Will in answer to the plaint claim. However, the Will was neither produced nor proved in spite of the fact that the plaintiff had filed replication challenging the Will, even the document produced as a Will is a fabricated document. 2. Bereft of the above, there is no ground on which the 3rd defendant could oppose the suit for partition. The title traced by the plaintiff to sue for partition is not disputed. Only the 3rd defendant contested. Though a witness was examined as DW2 to prove the Will, he said nothing about the Will and the Will was not even shown to him or challenged. The Will was not marked. The witness DW2, did not say anything specifically R.F.A.NO.245/2011 2 about having seen the execution of the Will. With the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere with the decree passed. Appeal fails and it is dismissed in limine. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp R.F.A.NO.245/2011 3