[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
C Indira vs M V Jayan on 5 December, 2025
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
OP(C) NO. 1079 OF 2016
1
2025:KER:94233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 1079 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2016 EP.No.57/2015 IN IA
NO.751/2014 IN IA.NO.1069/1993 IN OS NO.21 OF 1992 ON THE FILE OF
SUB COURT, HOSDRUG
PETITIONER:
1 C INDIRA
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O.LATE KUNHIKRISHNA KURUP,
RESIDING AT NEETHI NIKETHAN,COURT ROAD,
NEAR POLICE STATION,THALIPARAMBA,
P.O.THALIPARAMBA,KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 C.ANANDA KRISHNAN
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.LATE KUNHIKRISHNA KURUP,
RESIDING AT NEETHI NIKETHAN,COURT ROAD,
NEAR POLICE STATION,THALIPARAMBA,
P.O.THALIPARAMBA,KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 C.AMBIKA
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O.LATE KUNHIKRISHNA KURUP,
RESIDING AT NEETHI NIKETHAN, COURT ROAD,
NEAR POLICE STATION,THALIPARAMBA,
P.O.THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL
OP(C) NO. 1079 OF 2016
2
2025:KER:94233
RESPONDENTS:
1 M V JAYAN
S/O.KAMALAKSHI AMMA AND LATE VASUDEVA KURUP,
NOW RESIDING AT 'BADIRA HOUSE,
KUNDANKUZHI.P.O,BEDADUKKA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD TALUK VIA,CHENGALA-671 541.
2 SEEMANTHINI AMMA
W/O.VASUDEVA KURUP,RESIDING AT KANHANGAD SOUTH,
KANHANGAD VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK,
P.O.KANHANGAD SOUTH-671 315.
3 SUDARSHAN
S/O.VASUDEVA KURUP,RESIDING AT KANHANGAD SOUTH,
KANHANGAD VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK,
P.O.KANHANGAD SOUTH-671 315.
4 SUMANGALA
D/O VASUDEVA KURUP,
RESIDING AT KANHANGAD SOUTH,
KANHANGAD VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK,
P.O.KANHANGAD SOUTH-671 315.
5 RAMESHAN
S/O.VASUDEVA KURUP,
RESIDING AT KANHANGAD SOUTH,
KANHANGAD VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK,
P.O.KANHANGAD SOUTH-671 315.
6 ADDL.R6 P.C REMA
D/O LATE YOGIMADATHIL CHELLATTAN BALAKRISHNAKURUP,
RESIDING AT VANNATHANKUZHI,
THIMIRI VILLAGE,
HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.THIMIRI,
VIA CHERUVATHUR-671 313.
(ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/04/2016 IN
IA.NO.501/2016)
OP(C) NO. 1079 OF 2016
3
2025:KER:94233
BY ADVS.
SHRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN
SHRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
SRI.K.C.KURIYAN
SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN
SMT.N.SHOBHA
SHRI.B.R.MURALEEDHARAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.12.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 1079 OF 2016
4
2025:KER:94233
T.R.RAVI.J
------------------------------------
OP(C) No.1079 of 2016
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6
order whereby the claim for a supplemental final decree made
by the legal representatives of the 3 rd defendant has been
accepted. The petitioners' claim to be legal representatives of
one Kunhikrishna Kurup, who had purchased 40 cents of
property in 1988 from the 4 th defendant in the suit Smt.P.C
Rama and Balakrishna Kurup. The suit for partition was filed in
1992 without impleading late Kunhikrishna Kurup. The suit
was decreed. An appeal and a second appeal preferred by the
4th defendant, who alone had contested the suit, have been
dismissed. The preliminary decree became final. The plaintiff
sought for separate allotment. A Commissioner was deputed
and he has prepared a plan showing five plots as Plots A, B, C,
D and E. Plot B was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Later,
OP(C) NO. 1079 OF 2016
2025:KER:94233
the 2nd defendant and the legal representatives of the 1st
defendant had preferred applications for passing separate final
decrees in their favour and plots D and E were allotted to
them. The two other plots which were remaining were plots A
and C. The 4th defendant has not filed any application for
separate allotment of her share. The legal representatives of
the 3rd defendant preferred an application as EP.No.57/2015 in
IA.No.751/2014 in IA.No.1069/1993 in OS.No.21/1992. The
said application was allowed and plot A has been allotted to
the share of the 3rd defendant. It is Ext.P6 order in
IA.No.751/2014, which has been challenged by the petitioners.
The petitioners claimed that the 40 cents which had been
purchased was in their possession. It is contented that the suit
itself could not have been maintained without a prayer for
recovery of the said 40 cents and as such the decree cannot be
executed against the petitioners. Admittedly, the predecessor
of the petitioner, Sri. Kunhikrishna Kurup had sought for
separate allotment of 40 cents of land, which was rejected by
OP(C) NO. 1079 OF 2016
2025:KER:94233
the Court below by Ext.P3 order. However, the right of Sri.
Kunhikrishna Kurup had been protected by holding that he can
claim 40 cents out of the 98 cents which is to be allotted to the
4th defendant Smt.Rama. It is the very same contention which
is now taken. The Court below has considered the claim and
found that the petitioners cannot have a claim better than
their predecessor and since the predecessor had not
challenged Ext.P3 order, they are not entitled to raise the
same claim. However, the right of the petitioners have also
been protected by stating that their claim can only be as
against the share which is to be allotted to Smt.Rama. As at
present, the only plot that remains to be allotted is Plot C,
which is to be allotted to Rama and none of the other sharers
can have a claim as far as plot C is concerned. The earlier
orders issued have already protected the right of the
petitioners as regards 40 cents out of the 98 cents which is to
be allotted to Smt.Rama. There is also a finding that
Smt.Rama is residing in the house which is situated in plot C.
OP(C) NO. 1079 OF 2016
2025:KER:94233
Since Smt.Rama has not filed any application for separate
allotment, all that is required in this original petition is to
dispose of the same with certain directions.
The original petition is hence disposed of directing the
petitioners to file an application for separate allotment of 40
cents from out of the property scheduled as plot C in the
Commissioner's report and the said application shall be
considered and ordered by the Court below. The legal
representatives of the 3rd defendant who have been allotted
plot A will be entitled to seek mutation of the same in their
name and if such an application is submitted, the same shall
necessarily be ordered.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
sn
OP(C) NO. 1079 OF 2016
2025:KER:94233
APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO. 1079 OF 2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2015 IN
I.A.751/2014 IN F.D.I.A.NO.1069/1993 IN
O.S.21/1992 PASSED BY THE SUBORDINATE
JUDGE,HOSDURG.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN AS
75/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
KASARAGOD
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED
01.12.2015 FILED BY THE PEEITIONER
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2016 IN
E.P.NO.57/2015 IN I.A.751/20914 IN
I.A.1069/1993 IN O.S.21/1992 PASSED BY THE
SUBORDINATE JUDGE,HOSDURG.
