IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 AS.No. 813 of 1998(C) --------------------- ( OS.415/1994 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM) .................... APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS 1, 3 AND 5): ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. ALAGURU AMMAL, AGED 75 YEARS, W/O.VADAKKEPRATH DECEASE NAGAPPAN CHETTIAR, THENKARA AMSOM AND DESOM IN MANNARKKAD TALUK 2. ARAYANGOTTIL SUBRAMANNIAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ALAGURU AMMAL, THENKARA AMSOM AND DESOM IN MANNARKKAD TALUK. 3. RAJASEKHARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ALAGURU AMMAL, R/AT ARAYANGODE THENKARA AMSOM IN MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS (PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2 /DEFENDANTS 2, 4AND 6 TO 14): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LEELAVATHY, AGED 57 YEARS, D/O.VADAKKEPRATH DECEASED NAGAPPAN CHETTIAR, ARAKURUSSI AMSOM AND DESOM IN MANNARKKAD TALUK AND W/O.S.VENKITARAMAN, KRISHNARAJ COLONY, HOUSE NO.51, GANAPATHY, COIMBATORE. 2. SAROJA, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O.VADAKKEPRATH DECEASED NAGAPPAN CHETTIAR, AND WIFE OF S.N.SUBRAMANIAN, RESIDING AT VIVEKANANDA NIVAS, ARAKURUSSI AMSOM AND DESOM IN MANNARKKAD TALUK. * 3. SANTHANALAKSHMI, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.V.SINKARAM, RESIDING AT PATTAKKARAN PUDUR, ANNUR TALUK, COIMBATORE. (DIED) AS.No. 813 of 1998(C) ------------------------------- 4. PUSHPAVALLI, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.O.K.PALANICHAMI, RESIDING AT SREEEDEVI NAGAR, GANAPATHI, COIMBATORE. * 5. SIVARAMAN CHETTIYAR, AGED 74 YEARS, (DIED) * 6. KRISHNAN CHETTRIYAR, AGED 71 YEARS, (DIED) 7.MARUTHATHAL, AGED 69 YEARS, DELETED 8. PAZHANIYAPPAN CHETTIYAR, AGED 64 YEARS, 9. SHANMUGHAN CHETTIYAR, AGED 62 YEARS, 10. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 59 YEARS. * 11. KALI AMMAL, AGED 78 YEARS, W/O.VADAKKEPRATH SANKARAPPAN CHETTIAR (DIED) 12. GOPALAKRISHNAN CHETIAR, AGED 54 YEARS. 13. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 51 YEARS. * (THE DEATH OF RESPONDENTS 3, 5, 6 AND 11 IS RECORDED AS PER MEMO DATED 17.2.10, C.F. 976/10 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.7.12.). (RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10 ARE THE CHILDREN OF VADAKKEPRATH DECEASED NAGAPPAN CHETTIAR AND THEY ARE RESIDING AT ARAKURUSSI AMSOM AND DESOM IN MANNARKKAD TALUK) RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DT. 18.10-.10 IN IA.2894/10. BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK AS.No. 813 of 1998(C) -------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OF CROSS OBJECTIONS IN AS NO.813/1998 C ORDER ON 70/99 IN AS 813/1998 DISMISSED 14.1.2011 Sd/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE vk M.N.KRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. --------------------------- A.S.No.813 OF 1998 AND CROSS OBJECTION --------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ M.N.Krishnan, J. The appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the subordinate judges Court, Ottappalam, whereby plaint B schedule property has been ordered to be divided into seven equal shares and to allot two such shares to the plaintiffs and one such each to defendants 1 to 5. Aggrieved by that decision, the defendants 1, 3 and 5 had come up in appeal. The 1st appellant, namely the 1st defendant, had died during the pendency of the appeal. She along with respondents 3 and 4, who are D2 and D4 in the suit, had assigned their rights in favour of the son of the 2nd appellant as per a document registered as 5322/1998 of the Manarkkad Sub Registry Office. So, by virtue of this assignment deed, the persons entitled to right over the property are A2 and A3 and respondents 1 and 2 and son of A2. Now the plaintiffs in the suit, who are respondents 1 and 2 before this Court, had relinquished their A.S.No.813/1998 2 right in favour of the 2nd and 3rd appellants by virtue of document No.8313/2010 of the Sub Registrar's Office. So, by virtue of these transactions the property now belongs to defendants 2, 5 and son of the 3rd defendant. So, no further partition is necessary between the plaintiffs and the defendants and therefore, the appeal is allowed recording the compromise and the suit is dismissed. In the light of the fact that the cross objectors namely the plaintiffs had relinquished their right in favour of appellants 2 and 3 by virtue of the document referred to in the judgment nothing survives for consideration in the cross objection. Therefore, the cross objection also is dismissed. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps A.S.No.813/1998 3 M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE A.S.No.813 OF 1998 & CROSS OBJECTION J U D G M E N T 14.1.2011