IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 RFA.No. 837 of 2009() --------------------- OS.265/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1,3 & 5 ------------------------------------------------- 1. MAHENDRAN,S/O.NEELAKANDAN (LATE), NAGHU VEETTIL,MANAKUNNAM,POOTHOTTA. 2. SASIDHARAN,S/O.NEELAKANDAN (LATE), NAGHU VEETTIL,MANAKUNNAM,POTHOTTA. 3. MAHESWARI,W/O.MURALEEDHARAN AND NEELAKANDAN (LATE),VENDISSERIL,KILIYATTUNADA, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY SRI.BASIL THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF AND DEFEDANTS 2 & 4 -------------------------------------------- 1. ANJALI,W/O.CHELLAPPAN, D/O.NEELAKANDAN,KURUPPASSERIL(H),MANAKUNNAM, POTHOTTA. 2. MANOHARAN,S/O.NEELAKANDAN (LATE) NAGHU VEETIL,JANATHA ROAD,KOCHI. 3. JAYANTHI,W/O.THANKAPPAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN(LATE),VELIKKAKATHU(H) PASHNITHODU,PALLURUTHY. ADV. SRI.S.NIRMAL KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.JOSE P.JOSEPH FOR R1 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- R.F.A.No.837 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The first defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant. Defendants 1, 3 and 5 opposed the claim for partition on the ground that the property originally belonged to their father Neelakandan and it was obtained by him as kudikidappu. This very statement is sufficient to enable the plaintiff, who is a daughter of Neelakandan, to get a share since there is nothing on record whereby the plaintiff's share is shown to have been given to her. Her right in the property is not disputed. All that is pleaded is that she had gone away from the parental home and was settling away in Fort Kochi for a long period and the appealing defendant had given her some amounts as loan at the time of the marriage of her daughter. It is also stated that the first defendant had spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the RFA.837/09. 2 marriage of the plaintiff's daughter. These statements and any evidence in that regard would be insufficient to disentitle the plaintiff of her due share as a heir of late Neelakandan. We did not find any merit in this appeal. We also notice that whatever decision as to allotment were sought for, had been appropriately made by issuing necessary directions in the preliminary decree. Any further question of special right could be considered in the final decree stage and worked out accordingly, having regard to the nature and lie of the property. Subject to the above, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.11/06.