IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3552 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.17/2006 of SUB COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN I.A/2nd FINAL DECREE HOLDER IN FDIA/2nd PLAINTIFF IN O.S: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PAROL THAZHEKUNIYIL SAJINI D/O.CHATHU, AGED 32 YEARS, VELAM AMSOM, KURICHAKAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN IA/1st FINAL DECREE PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS IN FDIA/1st PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS IN O.S: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SATHEESAN,S/O.NARAYANAN, KUTTIYIL HOUSE VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK NOW R/A.KUTTIYIL HOUSE, CHEVAYUR-673104 2. THAKANMANI,D/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KANNOTH KAVIL HOUSE, VADYAM AMSOM,DESOM, NOW R/A.JAITHRAM HOUSE 3. CHALAYIL MEETHAL RAVEENDRAN, VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM,THIRUMANA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK KOZHIKODE DIST 4. MARUNNUR HAMEED, S/O.SOOPY MUSALIYAR, R/A.PILCHERI MEETHAL, KADAMERI AMSOM, ELAYADAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R1,3,4 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 3552 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH THE ALLOTMENT ACCOUNT AND PLAN DATED 27/3/2009 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH THE ALLOTMENT ACCOUNT AND PLAN DATED 24/2/2011. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION,IN IA 504/2011 EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 504/2011 IN THE FINAL DECREE PROCEEDINGS TURNING DOWN THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 4/10/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL /True Copy/ P.A to Judge THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3552 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The second plaintiff in O.S.No.17 of 2006 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Vadakara is the petitioner before me, challenging the order dated 04.10.2011 on I.A.No.504 of 2011 refusing to remit Ext.P2 report, share list and plan. Trial court passed preliminary decree for partition directing the properties to be divided into five equal parts. Based on that preliminary decree, there was an application for passing final decree in which the Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.P1, report, share list and plan. Ext.P1 was not objected by petitioner or the first plaintiff but, there was objection from the side of contesting respondents and on their request that report, share list and plan were remitted to the Advocate Commissioner for fresh division. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner has submitted Ext.P2, report, share list and plan. There was a further request by the petitioner/second plaintiff to remit Ext.P2 vide I.A.No.504 of 2011 which did not find favour with the learned Sub Judge. That order is under challenge. O.P(C).No.3552 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the division made as per Ext.A2 is uneven in that petitioner to whom plot B in Ext.P2 is allotted is not getting road frontage on the north and that road frontage on the east is less. Petitioner has also a grievance about extent of property allotted to him (9.73 cents) while some other sharers get 9.90cents, 14.75cents, 10.28 cents etc. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P1, report, share list and plan are more equitable even so far as the extent of property and its enjoyment are concerned. 3. Learned counsel for respondents contends that only petitioner/second plaintiff has challenged Ext.P2, report, share list and plan and that even the first plaintiff has not objected to it. It is also contended by learned counsel that division made as per Ext.P1 was uneven and inequitable in that road frontage was available only to three plots while others got road frontage on the western side to a narrow lane and that too, not for the entire property. 4. Having regard to the rival contentions, I am inclined to think that this Court is not required to interfere in the matter at this stage. It is open to the learned Sub Judge to pass final decree based on Ext.P2 and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the O.P(C).No.3552 of 2011 -: 3 :- final decree, it is open to him to challenge the final decree and raise all his contentions regarding the acceptability of Ext.P2 in preference to Ext.P1 in such appeal. Leaving that right open to the petitioner this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-