Kerala High Court
K.S.Santhosh Burleigh vs M.Thirupa Reddy on 16 September, 2025
RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
1
2025:KER:68775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 25TH BHADRA, 1947
RFA NO. 208 OF 2019
OS NO.117 OF 2002 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOCHI
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 2, 3,5, 6 AND 7
1 K.S.SANTHOSH BURLEIGH, S/O.LATE K.J.BURLEIGH, CCX/1290,
SOUTH THAMARAPARAMBU, AMARAVATHI,FORT KOCHI VILLAGE,
KOCHI TALUK.
2 K.S.PRAKASH BURLEIGH, S/O.LATE K.J.BURLEIGH,
CCX/1290,SOUTH THAMARAPARAMBU, AMARAVATHI, FORT KOCHI
VILLAGE,KOCHI TALUK.
3 THOMAS KURISINGAL, S/O LATE K.I.BURLEIGH, KIRISINGAL
HOUSE, K.B.JACOB ROAD, COCHIN-682011. [DIED]
4 SOPHY THOMAS, W/O.THOMAS KURISINGAL, KURISINGAL
HOUSE,K.B.JACOB ROAD,COCHIN-682011.
5 TARUN THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS KURISINGAL,KURISINGAL
HOUSE,K.B.JACOB ROAD,COCHIN-682011.
ADDL.6 TANYA ABRAHAM, AGED 51 YEARS,
D/O THOMAS KURISINGAL, 10/1291, KURISINGAL HOUSE, K.B.
JACOB ROAD, COCHIN-682001
ADDL.7 TAMINA GEORGE, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O GEORGE JACOB, 8/1196,
K.B. JACOB ROAD, COCHIN-682001
( THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 3RD
APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.APPELLANTS 6 AND 7 VIDE
ORDER DATED 08.04.2025 IN IA 1/2025 IN RFA 208/19)
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR.)
SRI.V.V.BALACHANDRAN
RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
2
2025:KER:68775
SRI.S.SHYAM
SHRI.KIRAN PETER KURIAKOSE
SMT.DRISHYA K.PRAKASH
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 2 AND 3, DEFENDANTS 4 AND 8 TO 14
1 M.THIRUPA REDDY, S/O LATE VENKETA REDDY,25,1ST CRESCENT
PARK ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, CHENNAI-600020.
2 SUNIL REDDY, S/O.THIRUPA REDDY, NO.25, 1ST CRESCENT
PARK ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, CHENNAI-600020.
3 DR.K.B.JACOB, S/O LATE K.J.BURLEIGH, JACOB'S NURSING
HOME, KAZHUTHUMUTTU, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-682005.
4 DR.K.J.CLEETUS, S/O LATE K.J.CLEETUS, NO.3, CEDAR WOOD
DRIVE, MORGAN TOWN, WV.26505-3628, U.S.A PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT KURISINGAL HOUSE, K.B.JACOB ROAD, KOCHI-
682011.
5 DR.CECELIA PAUL, D/O K.J.CLEATUS, 113, TURNBULL ROAD,
DANDAS, ONT L9H 529,SR9,CANADA.
6 SANJAY LAZAR, S/O.LATE SAMPAT LAZAR, 6-B LOTSE
APARTMENTS, CEDAR WOOD DRIVE, MORGAR TOWN, W.V.26505,
3628, U.S.A. ROSE PARK, JOHU, MUMBAI- 400049
7 CHARLOTTE KUICHAENNER, W/O.LATE ASHOK LAZAR,
NORREBROGADE 22.2, DK 2200, COPENHAGEN N, DENMARK.
(DIED)
8 RAYANA, D/O.LATE ASHOK LAZAR, C/O MARVYN D SOUZA (DIED)
BAC TOYOTO DIVISION, P.B.8168, 112 RUWI, MUSCAT,
SULTANATE OF OMAN.
9 K.R.AJIT BABU,
S/O.N.RAVI, C.C.10/1435, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, FORT KOCHI
TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682001.
10 N.BALAN, NEAR KURISINGAL HOUSE
FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, FORT KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.
RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
3
2025:KER:68775
ADDL.11 CHANTEL RUTH D'SOUZA, AGED 18 YEARS, C/O.MRS. CHARLOTTE
KUICHAINNER, W/O.LATE ASHOK LAZAR, NORREBROGADE 22.2,
DK22000, COPENHAGEN N, DENMARK.
(THE LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED R7 IS IMPLEADED AS
ADDITIONAL R11 VIDE ORDER DATED 05/08/2020 IN IA
2/2020.)
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN
SRI.T.MADHU
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SRI.ASHLY ANTONY
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
SRI.SHERRY SAMUEL OOMMEN
SMT.JIBY G.J.
SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)
SMT.ASHA ESTHER OOMMEN
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SMT.NIDHI JACOB
SMT.STIYA SIVAN
SRI.MOBIN JACOB
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.8.2025, ALONG WITH RFA.270/2020, THE COURT ON 16.9.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
4
2025:KER:68775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 25TH BHADRA, 1947
RFA NO. 270 OF 2020
OS NO.117 OF 2002 OF SUB COURT,KOCHI
APPELLANT/13TH DEFENDANT
K.R.AJIT BABU, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O .N. RAVI,C.C.10/1435, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI
TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SMT.VAISAKHI V.
SRI.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQUE
SHRI.UNAIS K.P.
RESPONDENTS/LRs OF DECEASED PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 12 & 14 &
LR OF DECEASED 14TH DEFENDANT
1 M.THIRAPA REDDY, AGED 67 YEARS, BUSINESS ,S/O. LATE
VENKATA REDDY ,25,1ST CRESCENT PARK ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR,CHENNAI-600020
2 SUNIL REDDY, AGED 41 YEARS,
BUSINESS, S/O THRIPA REDDY,25,1ST CRESCENT PARK ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR,CHENNAI-600020
3 ANNIE BURLEIGH,(DIED),
W/O LATE K.J.BURLEIGH .C.C.X/1290, SOUTH
THAMARAPARAMBU,AMARAVATHI, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI
RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
5
2025:KER:68775
TALUK, KOCHI -682001. [DIED]
4 K.S.SANTHOSH BURLEIGH, S/O LATE K.J.BURLEIGH, AGED 76
YEARS,C.C.X/1290,SOUTH THAMARAPARAMBU, AMARAVATHI, FORT
KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI-682001.
5 K.S.PRAKASH BURLIEGH, S/O LATE K.J.BURLEIGH, AGED 78
YEARS, C.C.X/1290, SOUTH THAMARAPARAMBU,
AMARAVATHI,FORT KOCHI VILLAGE,KOCHI TALUK, KOCHI-
682001.
6 DR.K.B.JACOB, S/O LATE K.J.BURLEIGH , AGED 85 YEARS,
JACOB'S NURSING HOME, KAZHUTHUMUTTU,THOPPUMPADY,KOCHI-
682005
7 THOMAS KURISINGAL, S/O LATE K.J BURLEIGH , AGED 81
YEARS, KURISINGAL HOUSE, K.B .JACOB ROAD , KOCHI-682011
8 SOPHY THMAS, W/O THOMAS KURUSINGAL , AGED 68 YEARS,
KURISINGAL HOUSE, K.B.JACOB ROAD ,KOCHI-682011
9 TARUN THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS KURUSINGAL , AGED 37 YEARS,
KURISINGAL HOUSE, K.B.JACOB ROAD , KOCHI-682011
10 DR K.J. CLEETUS, S/O K.J.CLEETUS, AGED 74 YEARS, NO.3
CEDAR WOOD DRIVE, MORGAN TOWN, W.V.,26505-3628, USA,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KURISINGAL HOUSE, K.B.JACOB ROAD,
KOCHI-682011
11 DR. CECELIA PAUL, D/O LATE K.J.CLEETUS, 113,TURNBULL
RAOD, DUNDAS, ONT L9H 5R9 CANADA
12 SANJAY LAZAR, S/O LATE SMBATH LAZAR, AGED 45 YEARS, 6-
B, LHTOSE APPARTMENTS,CEDAR WOOD DRIVE, MORGAN
TOWN,W.V.26505-3628, USA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT RUIA
PARK, JUHU, MUMBAI-400049
13 CHRLOTTE KUICHEINNER, W/O LATE ASHOK LAZER, AGED 66
YEARS, NORREBROGADE,22.2,D K-2200, COPENHAGEN, N
DENMARK
14 RAYANA, D/O LATE ASHOK LAZER, AGED 45 YEARS, C/O MERVYN
D' SOUZA,BAC TOYOTTA DIVISION, P.B.8168, 112,
RUWI,MUSCAT, SULTANATE OF OMAN [DIED]
RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
6
2025:KER:68775
15 N.BALAN, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O NANU ,KALANILAYAM, NEAR
KURISINGAL HOUSE , FORT KOCHI VILLAGE , KOCHI TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , KOCHI-682001
16 CHANTEL RUTH D' SOUZA, AGED 18 YEARS, C/O MRS.CHRLOTTE
KUICHAINNER, W/O LATE ASHOK LAZER,
NORREBRODGADE,22.2,DK-2200,COPENHANGEN, N DENMARK
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN
SHRI.N.K.KARNIS
SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR.)
SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.JIBY G.J.
SRI.SHERRY SAMUEL OOMMEN
SRI.ASHLY ANTONY
SRI.S.SHYAM
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
SRI.V.K.BALACHANDRAN
SMT.NIDHI JACOB
SHRI.NITISH SATHESH SHENOY
SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
SHRI.KIRAN PETER KURIAKOSE
SHRI.VINAY KUMAR VARMA
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.8.2025, ALONG WITH RFA.208/2019, THE COURT ON 16.9.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
1
2025:KER:68775
JUDGMENT
Dated : 16th September, 2025 The contesting defendants, namely defendants 2, 3 and 5 to 7, in O.S. No. 117 of 2002, on the file of the Sub Court, Kochi, are the appellants in RFA 208 of 2019. Additional defendant no. 13 in the above suit is the appellant in RFA 270 of 2020. Both these appeals are filed against the final judgment and decree passed by the trial court in the above suit for partition on 14.11.2018. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court. )
2. The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to the late Mr. K.B. Jacob, who died intestate in 1928. Sri K.B. Jacob was survived by his six sons and a daughter. All the seven children of K.B. Jacob died before the present suit was filed. The suit was originally filed by deceased Maya Reddy, the wife of the first respondent and mother of the second respondent against 14 defendants. Out of which, defendants 13 and 14 are assignees of the other defendants. Altogether there were nine items of properties which are scheduled as plaint 'A' to ' I' schedules. Out of which 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'I' schedules are occupied by Kudikidappukars. 'F', 'G' and 'H' schedules are paddy fields situated at Palluruthy, and plaint 'D' and 'E' schedules, consisting of about 1 acre of landed property and a large residential building which situated in the middle of the said property is the prime property available for partition and the bone of contention between the parties.
RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
2
2025:KER:68775
3. After rejecting the plea of adverse possession and limitation, the trial court passed a preliminary decree on 28.10.2004 holding that the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/4th share from the plaint schedule properties. The preliminary decree further states that the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profits from defendant nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. As per the preliminary decree, document Nos. 1436 of 1988 and 1069 of 1997 (Exts.A1 and A3) were held not binding on the plaintiff and defendants 8 to 12. The court further held that document No. 2851 of 1994 (Ext.A2) is null and void. However, the trial court ordered that the property sold to defendants 13 and 14 as per Exhibit A1 and A3 documents and the property covered by Exhibit A2 gift deed, will be allotted to the share of defendants 1 to 7 in the final decree proceedings.
4. Though the contesting defendants challenged the above preliminary decree before this court by filing RFA 255 of 2005, the same was dismissed by this Court on 9.11.2023, confirming the preliminary decree and as such the preliminary decree became final. Thereafter the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff filed a final decree application before the trial court as FDA No. 620 of 2011, in which an Advocate Commissioner and surveyor were deputed and they filed a commission report and sketches, which were marked as Exhibit C1 and C1(a) to C1(e) respectively, on 9.2.2015. Then the commissioner filed an interim report which was marked as Exhibit C2 and another report filed by a mediator was marked as Exhibit C3. Thereafter, on 14.11.2018, the trial court passed a final decree directing sale of 'D' and 'E' schedule properties in auction and to divide the sale proceeds among the share holders. At the RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
3
2025:KER:68775 same time, the trial court accepted the commission report in respect of the other items of properties. Aggrieved by the above final judgment and decree, the contesting defendants preferred RFA 208 of 2019 and the 13 th defendant preferred RFA 270 of 2020.
5. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the final decree dated 14.11.2018 passed by the trial court in FDA. No. 620 of 2011, ordering sale of plaint D and E schedule properties is liable to be interfered with, in the light of the grounds raised in the appeals?
6. Heard Sri.N. Sukumaran, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants, as instructed by Sri V.V.Balachandran, Sri Sukumar Nainan Oommen, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Sri. Babu Karagappadath, the learned counsel for the 13th defendant.
7. The point: As I have already noted above, though altogether nine items of properties are there, plaint 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'I' schedules having an extent of more than seven acres, are now in the possession of different Kudikidappukars. Plaint schedule 'F', 'G' and 'H' are paddy fields situated at Palluruthy. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the final decree applicants/plaintiffs contended that since plaint 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'I' schedule properties are in the possession of various Kudikidappukars, it is not at all possible to measure and divide the above properties and to allot shares from those properties to the shareholders and as such, according to the learned counsel, the plaintiffs RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
4
2025:KER:68775 are ready to relinquish their share from plaint 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'I' schedule properties. It is also admitted by both sides that, with regard to the division of the properties, namely plaint 'F', 'G and 'H' schedules, there is no dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the direction of the trial court to sell plaint 'D' and 'E' schedules in auction among the shareholders or otherwise and to apportion the sale proceeds among the shareholders as per the terms of the preliminary decree.
8. The learned Senior counsel would argue that, as per the preliminary decree, which became final, the properties covered by Exhibit A1 and A3 and also the property covered by Exhibit A2 gift deed, are to be allotted to the share of defendants 1 to
7. However, according to the learned Senior counsel, disregarding the above reservation made in the preliminary decree, the trial court has ordered auction sale of the D and E schedule properties, which, according to him, is against the preliminary decree passed by the trial court as confirmed by this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would argue that since the trial court itself found that Exhibits A1 and A3 documents are not binding on the plaintiffs and defendants 8 to 12, and declared Exhibit A2 as null and void, there can be no reservations and as such, according to the learned counsel, from 'D' and 'E' schedule properties, the plaintiffs along with defendants 8 to 12 are entitled to get 3 / 4 share. Further, according to the learned counsel, since there is a large residential building situated in the middle of 'D' and 'E' schedule properties, it is not feasible to divide the said property among the shareholders and the best option available before the trial court was only to put plaint 'D' and 'E' schedule to sale. Therefore, the RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
5
2025:KER:68775 learned counsel for the plaintiffs prayed for dismissing the appeals and to confirm the final decree.
9. It is true that in the preliminary decree the trial court found that Exhibit A1 and A3 documents are not binding on the plaintiffs and defendants 8 to 12 and also that Exhibit A2 gift deed is null and void. Even then in the preliminary decree there is specific reservation in favour of defendants 1 to 7 as follows :
"The property sold to defendant nos. 13 and 14 as per documents A1 and A3 and the property covered by A2 gift deed will be allotted to the share of defendant nos. 1 to 7 in the final decree proceedings."
10. As I have already noted above, the appeal namely RFA 255 of 2005 filed challenging the above preliminary decree was dismissed by this Court on 9.11.2023, confirming the preliminary decree and as such, the above preliminary decree became final and the above reservation made in favour of defendant nos. 1 to 7 to allot the properties covered by Exhibits A1 to A3 towards their share became final and binding on this court as well. Now the question to be considered is whether the final decree passed by the trial court is in tune with the spirit of the above preliminary decree confirmed by this court.
11. It appears that the contesting defendants filed I.A. No. 470 of 2015 before the trial court praying for setting aside the commission report and the sketches prepared by the Commissioner in the final decree proceedings. The main ground raised by the RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
6
2025:KER:68775 contesting defendants in the above application was that the Commissioner has not complied with the above reservation made by the trial court in the preliminary decree in favour of defendants 1 to 7. After hearing both sides, the trial court disposed of the above I.A., holding that the above commission report was not in tune with the preliminary decree. Accordingly, instead of setting aside the commission report, the trial court ordered to remit back the commission report, with a direction to rectify the above mistakes and also directing the Commissioner to partition the properties in tune with the preliminary decree. In the said order there was a specific direction to the Commissioner to allot separate shares of defendants 1 to 7, in the properties covered by Exhibits A1 to A3, in accordance with the shares to which they are entitled for.
12. Though the plaintiffs challenged the above order of the trial court by filing OP(C) 658 of 2017, the same was dismissed by this Court, confirming the order passed by the trial court for remitting the commission report for filing fresh report, after curing the defects noted in the said order. Thereafter, the commissioner filed an interim report on 20.10.2017, which was marked as Ext.C2. He filed such an interim report as the counsel for the petitioner informed him that he is trying to resolve the dispute amicably. Thereafter, the trial court appointed Adv.K.N.Sivasankaran, a senior lawyer practicing before Kochi courts as 'mediator', to expedite the measurements. After negotiations with the parties, the 'mediator' appointed by the court filed a report, which was marked as Ext.C3. In the said report he recommended to sell plaint 'D' and 'E' schedule properties in auction among the shareholders or by public auction or by private sale. Thereafter, the RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
7
2025:KER:68775 trial court, accepting the above report filed by the 'mediator', ordered to sell the D and E schedule properties and to partition the remaining properties in tune with Exhibits C1 report and C1 series of sketches.
13. Therefore, prima facie it can be seen that the order passed by the trial court on 18.11.2016 in I.A. No. 470/2015, ordering to remit back the commission report, for curing the defects and to partition the scheduled properties in tune with the preliminary decree, which was confirmed by this court, was not complied. Instead, the trial court has given a go-by to the said order and thereafter deputed a lawyer as 'mediator' and on the basis of his report, which was not signed by any of the parties, proceeded to pass a final decree ordering sale of 'D' and 'E' schedule properties.
14. As I have already noted above, as per the preliminary decree, the properties covered by Exhibits A1 to A3 are to be allotted to the share of defendants 1 to
7. The property covered by Exhibit A1 is 7.75 cents and Exhibit A3 consists of 7.40 cents. In Exhibit C1(b) sketch, the Commissioner has separately noted the above properties covered by Exhibits A1 and A3, which are sold by the contesting defendants to defendants 13 and 14. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that they have no dispute with regard to allotting the properties covered by Exhibit A1 and A3, along with the share of defendants 1 to 7. However, with regard to the property covered by Exhibit A2 gift deed, the plaintiffs have serious objections. As per Exhibit A2 gift deed, an extent of 51 cents from out of plaint 'D' and 'E' schedule was RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
8
2025:KER:68775 assigned by defendant nos. 5 and 6 in favour of defendant no. 7. Since the total extent of the 'D' and 'E' schedule is 1 acre (extent available as per Ext.C1 is 85.75 cents), there may not be much difficulty in demarcating the above 51 cents property from plaint 'D' and 'E' schedule properties. Without making any efforts to identify and to allot the properties covered by Exhibits A1, A2 and A3, towards the share of defendant nos. 1 to 7, as stipulated in the preliminary decree, the trial court has accepted the recommendation of the mediator to sell 'D' and 'E' schedule properties.
15. From the Ext.C2 interim report filed by the commissioner dated 20.1.2017 it is clear that he stopped to proceed with the direction in the order dated 18.11.2016, as the counsel for the plaintiff told him that he is trying to settle the matter amicably. Then came Ext.C3 report dated 10.12.2017 filed by the 'mediator', without the juncture of the commissioner. From the Ext.C3 report it is revealed that, after the mediator was appointed, he had taken over the role of the commissioner, directly issued notice to the parties as well as to the commissioner and inspected the property on 5.12.2017. In Ext.C3 it is stated that:"The learned commissioner could not join in conducting inspection appears to be due to his preoccupations". The trial court was not justified in appointing a senior lawyer to assist an advocate commissioner and styling his role as 'mediator' to sideline the commissioner. Since Ext.C3 is a report filed by an advocate, appointed by the court directly, styling as a 'mediator' to expedite the measurements and he prepared Ext.C3 report without the juncture of the commissioner, it did not have the sanctity of a report filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC.
RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
9
2025:KER:68775
16. In the final judgment, nothing is mentioned about the order dated 18.11.2016 in IA 470/2015. No attempt is seen made to give effect to the said order, which was confirmed by this court. Without attempting to partition the property as per the order dated 18.11.2016 in IA 470/2015 and holding that it is impracticable, the trial court was not justified in ordering sale of plaint 'D' and 'E' schedule properties. The above strange procedure adopted by the trial court is against the spirit of the preliminary decree as well as in utter disregard of the order in I.A. No. 470/2015, which was confirmed by this court in OP.(C). No. 658 of 2017, can never be encouraged or appreciated. In the above circumstances, the final decree passed by the trial court, disregarding the order dated 18.11.2016 in I.A. No. 470/2015, as confirmed by this Court in OP.(C). No. 658 of 2017, is liable to be set aside. Points answered accordingly.
17. In the result, the impugned final judgment and decree are set aside. The trial court is directed to remit back the commission report, as ordered in I.A. 470/2015, to the Commissioner and to pass a final decree in tune with the preliminary decree. Considering the fact that this is a very old matter, the trial court is directed to dispose of the final decree application at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
18. It is made clear that, while attempting to partition the plaint 'D' and 'E' schedule properties as per the order dated 18.11.2016 in I.A. 470/2015, if the court finds that a division of the property cannot reasonably or conveniently be made, and that a sale RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
10
2025:KER:68775 of the property and distribution of the proceeds would be more beneficial for all the share holders, may resort to any such options available as per law.
19. Considering the facts, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in this appeal.
All pending interlocutory applications in both the appeals, will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
C.Pratheep Kumar, Judge Mrcs/10.9.
RFA 208/2019 and 270/2020.
11 2025:KER:68775 APPENDIX OF RFA 208/2019 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1602/93 OF THE SRO,DEVIKULAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1603/93 OF THE SRO,DEVIKULAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1604/93 OF THE SRO,DEVIKULAM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.682/94 OF THE SRO,DEVIKULAM. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.989/94 OF DATED 29.4.1994 OF THE SRO,DEVIKULAM. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.842/94 DATED 16.05.1994 OF THE SRO,DEVIKULAM. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 WITH RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 & 2006-07 WITH RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2007 OF THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR,UDUMBANCHOLA. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P(C)NO.22012 OF 2012. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C)NO.28808 OF 2015. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14.06.2016 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED NIL OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR DESPATCHED ON 11.11.2016. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER (LAND REVENUE). EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.357635/A2/2015/REVENUE DATED 30/10/2017 OF THE REVENUE DEPT.,GOVT.OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.09.2018 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.