IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 RSA.No. 464 of 2009() --------------------- AS.109/2005 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA OS.373/2000 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... : APPELLANT/APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------------------- ABDUL SALAM, S/O. KALLUPARAMBIL KADIRSHA, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP SRI.M.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT NOS. 2 AND 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUHARABI, W/O. KALLUPARAMBIL KADIRSHA, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. NURJAHAN, D/O. KALLUPARAMBIL KADIRSHA, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. BABU, S/O KALLUPARAMBIL KADIRSHA IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE & DESOM MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1060 OF 2009 IN R.S.A. NO. 464 OF 2009 DISMISSED SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE 5.6.2009 HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A.No. 464 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. 109/2005 on the file of Principal Sub court, irinjalakuda which arises from the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 373/2000 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda. In the final decree proceedings, the Advocate Commissioner has prepared a report, based on which the final decree was passed which was challenged by the 1st defendant by filing A.S. 109/2005 before the lower appellate Court, and the same was dismissed on 27-3-2009. Hence this Second Appeal. 2. The 1st defendant/appellant prayed before the trial court to get more road frontage added to his share of property and for that he is willing to compensate by giving some space other portions allotted to him. Before the Commissioner all the three sharers requested that the plaint schedule property may be allotted in such a way that all of them should get road frontage . The Commissioner rightly shared the plaint Schedule property and allotted to the three sharers. In my view the Commissioner cannot be found fault with. 3. The learned counsel for the 1st defendant/ appellant submitted before this Court that the allotment made by the Commissioner is not just. The 1st defendant/ appellant also contended that he may be allotted R.S.A No. 464 of 2009 -2- more road frontage for his share of property and for that he is willing to compensate the same by giving some space from his own share of property. On going through the Commissioner's plan it can be seen that the said demarcation is in accordance with the preliminary decree and supplemental preliminary decree and the said demarcation is so made considering the requirement of each party and extent to which they are entitled in a manner causing least inconvenience. No sufficient grounds are made out in this appeal for interference and there is no scope for invoking Section 100 of the C.P.C No questions of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. This appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- R.S.A.No. 464 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 4th June , 2009