Kerala High Court
Manikantan.K vs Rugmani on 31 July, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:56703
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
RFA NO. 417 OF 2013
AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 11.01.2013 IN OS NO.762
OF 2009 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD
-----
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANT NOS.2, 1 & 3:
1 MANIKANTAN.K., [DIED]
S/O LATE KUNJU EZUTHASSAN, THEKKEVEEDU,
KAVUNGAL PARAMBU, BHAGAVATHI NAGAR, PUDUSSERI,
PUDUSSERI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 JANAKI AMMA,
W/O LATE KUNJU EZUTHASSAN, THEKKEVEEDU,
KAVUNGAL PARAMBU, BHAGAVATHI NAGAR, PUDUSSERI,
PUDUSSERI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
3 RAMANKUTTY,
S/O LATE KUNJU EZUTHASSAN, THEKKEVEEDU,
KAVUNGAL PARAMBU, BHAGAVATHI NAGAR, PUDUSSERI,
PUDUSSERI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
* ADDL. APPELLANTS A4 TO A6
4 SUJATHA,
W/O LATE MANIKANTAN K, AGED 51, THEKKEVEEDU,
KAVUNGAL PARAMBU, BHAGAVATHI NAGAR, PUDUSSERI,
PUDUSSERI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678103.
5 MIDHUNLAL,
S/O LATE MANIKANTAN K, AGED 23, THEKKEVEEDU,
KAVUNGAL PARAMBU, BHAGAVATHI NAGAR, PUDUSSERI,
PUDUSSERI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 678103.
2025:KER:56703
RFA NO. 417 OF 2013 -2-
6 SUBINLAL,
S/O LATE MANIKANTAN K, AGED 51, THEKKEVEEDU,
KAVUNGAL PARAMBU, BHAGAVATHI NAGAR, PUDUSSERI,
PUDUSSERI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 678103 .
*(THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 1ST APPELLANT ARE
IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS A4 TO A6 AS PER
ORDER DATED 20.02.2025 IN I.A.NO. 1 OF 2025 IN RFA 417
OF 2013)
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SRI.LIJU. M.P
SMT.FIDA HUSNA P.P.
SHRI.FADHI RAHMAN
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT NO.4:
1 RUGMANI,
W/O P.R.MANI, POOVATHINGAL VEEDU, PUDUSSERRY PARAMBU,
ODANOOR P.O., PARALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 SUDHA,
W/O RADHAKRISHNAN POOVATHINGAL VEEDU, ODANOOR P.O.,
PARALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
31.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56703
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.F.A. No.417 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The preliminary decree in a suit for partition is under
challenge by defendants 1 to 3.
2. Plaint schedule consists of two items of properties.
Item No.1 has an extent of 4 cents and item No.2 which is a
"nilam" has an extent of 3 acres and 20 cents.
3. Larger extent of properties including the plaint
schedule originally belonged to one Raman Ezhuthassan under
Exts.B1 Sale Deed and B2 Lease deed. He had two sons namely,
Parameswaran Ezhuthassan and Kunju Ezhuthassan. The first
defendant is the wife of Kunju Ezhuthassan. The plaintiff
and the other defendants are his children (4 children).
Kunju Ezhuthassan died in the year 1990. On 13.04.1992, the
legal heirs of Kunju Ezhuthassan (the plaintiff and the
defendants) along with Parameswaran Ezhuthassan entered into
Ext.A1 Partition Deed. In Ext.A1 partition deed, the 'A'
2025:KER:56703
schedule therein was allotted to Parameswaran Ezhuthassan
and the 'B' schedule was allotted to the plaintiff and the
defendants herein. The plaint schedule property is part of
the said 'B' schedule. One of the daughters of Kunju
Ezhuthassan has filed the suit claiming partition and
separate possession of 1/5 shares.
4. Defendants 1 to 3 viz, the mother and the sons,
contended that the property was a joint Family property and
that the sons had acquired a right over the property by
birth. Kunju Ezhuthassan and the sons (defendants 2 and 3)
each had one-third shares over the property. It is contended
that only the one-third share of Kunju Ezhuthassan is liable
to be partitioned.
5. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for
partition and separate possession of 1/5 shares.
6. The first appellant, who was the 2 nd defendant in the
suit died pending the appeal and his legal heirs have been
impleaded as additional appellants 4 to 6.
7. We have heard Sri.Sajan Varghese, the learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri.K.P.Balagopal, the
2025:KER:56703
learned counsel for respondents.
8. The points that arise for determination are: -
(i) Is the claim of defendants 2 and 3 for one-third share each over
the plaint schedule, along with their father Kunju Ezhuthassan, liable to
be recognized on the facts and evidence?
(ii) Does the decree and judgment of the trial court warrant any
interference?
Ext.A1 is the Partition Deed dated 13.04.1992 between
Parameswaran Ezhuthassan on one part, and the plaintiff and
the defendants, who are the legal heirs of Kunju
Ezhuthassan, on the other. The recitals in Ext.A1 are to the
effect that the property belonged jointly to Parameswaran
Ezhuthassan and Kunju Ezhuthassan as inherited from their
father Raman Ezhuthassan and mother Paru Amma. It is further
recited that the jenmom right over portion of property was
obtained by the brothers Parameswaran Ezhuthassan and Kunju
Ezhuthassan as per Purchase Certificate No. 920/1977 issued
by the Special Munsiff, Land Tribunal, Ottapalam, in its
proceedings No.5023/1975, and Purchase Certificate
No.12/1980 issued as per the proceedings 1461/1979 of Land
Tribunal-IV, Ottapalam. Ext.A1 aknowledges that on the death
2025:KER:56703
of Kunju Ezhuthassan the plaintiff and defendants herein
have obtained his share through succession. It is further
recited therein that the partition is being entered into on
the intervention of mediators. The relevant recitals read
thus :-
".....പപിനന്നീടട് ടപി രരാമൻ എഴഴുത്തശ്ശനന്റേയഴുയും അനദ്ദേഹത്തപിനന്റേ ഭരാരര്യ പരാറഴു
അമ്മയഴുനടയഴുയും മരണനശേഷയും ആ അവകരാശേയും പപിനഴുടർച്ച വഴപികട്
മകളരായ 1--രായും നമമ്പ്രകരാരനഴുയും കഴുഞഴു എഴഴുത്തശ്ശനഴുയും കകൂടപി
അവകരാശേനപ്പെടട്ടുകപിടപിയതഴുയും ഏതരാനഴുയും വഹകളട്ടുനട ജനരാവകരാശേയും
ഒറ്റപ്പെരാലയും സട്നപഷൽ മഴുൻസപിഫട് ലരാൺമടപിബകൂണലപിൽ നപിനട് 1975 നല
5023--രായും നമമ്പ്ര അനപക്ഷകനഴുസരപിച്ചട് 1977 നല 920 നമമ്പ്രരായഴുയും
ഏതരാനഴുയും വഹകളട്ടുനട ജനരാവകരാശേയും ഒറ്റപ്പെരാലയും No.4
ലരാൺമടപിബകൂണലപിൽ നപിനട് 1979 നല 1461--രായും നമമ്പ്ര സസ്വനമധയരായഴുള
നടപടപികനഴുസരപിച്ചട് 1980 നല 12--രായും നമമ്പ്രരായഴുയും ലഭപിച്ചട്ടുപതപിച്ചട്ടു
നകരാടഴുകരാൻ സർടപിഫപികറ്റട്ടുകൾ മപകരാരയും പതപിച്ചട്ടുകപിടപിയതഴുയും പപിനന്നീടട് ടപി
കഴുഞഴു എഴഴുത്തശ്ശനന്റേ മരണനശേഷയും ആ അവകരാശേയും ഭരാരര്യ മകളരായ 2
മഴുതൽ 6 കകൂടപി നമമ്പ്രകരാർകട് പപിനഴുടർച്ച വഴപിയപിൽ അവകരാശേനപ്പെടട്ടു
കപിടപിയതഴുയും ..........
...... മപസട്തഴുത വഹകനള ഭരാഗപിച്ചട്ടു നവർപപിരപിയഴുനതഴു വളനര ഉചപിതവഴുയും
നമ്മഴുനട ഭരാവപി ജന്നീവപിതത്തപിനട് നമശേയസട്ടുമരാനണനഴു കണ്ടതപിനരാലഴുയും
ആയതട് മദര്യസ്ഥനരാർ മഴുഖരാനപിരയും ഭരാഗപിച്ചട്ടു നവർപപിരപിയഴുവരാൻ
തന്നീർച്ചനപ്പെടഴുത്തപിയപിതഴുനകരാണ്ടട് ഇനപ്പെരാൾ ഈ ഭരാഗപമതത്തപിനഴു
കരാരണമരായതരാകഴുനഴു. ....."
2025:KER:56703
9. The parties trace title through succession.
Evidently there is no claim in Ext.A1 regarding coparcenary
property; in fact, it is to the contrary. The sons born to
Parameswaran Ezhuthassan are not parties to Ext.A1
partition. If the property was reckoned as coparcenary
property, then the shares would have been different. The
parties voluntarily entered into the partition treating it
to be the property that belonged to Parameswaran Ezhuthassan
and Kunju Ezhuthassan as co-owners.
10. Pursuant to Ext.A1 partition, the plaintiff and the
defendants jointly, conveyed a portion of the property
allotted to them thereunder, in favour of strangers. Though
the plaint averment with regard to such alienation is denied
in the written statement, the assertion of the plaintiff as
PW1 in her chief-examination was not challenged or disputed
in cross-examination.
11. None of the defendants have mounted the witness
box. A claim of coparcenary right was never set up till the
filing of the written statement. On the contrary Ext.A1
indicates that the parties voluntarily treated the property
2025:KER:56703
otherwise. Ext.A1 was in the year 1992. The suit is in the
year 2009. After having entered into Ext.A1 partition with
Parameswaran Ezhuthassan by treating it to be not a
coparcenary property, if such claim is now permitted to be
raised by defendants 2 and 3 and that too, only over that
property allotted to the plaintiff and defendants under
Ext.A1 partition, it would put them to serious prejudice.
The rights if any with defendants 2 and 3 cannot survive and
be recognised after Ext.A1 partition. The trial court was
justified in having negatived such claim.
12. The first defendant in the suit, who is the second
appellant, died pending the appeal. Regarding her share, a
supplementary preliminary decree has been passed by the
trial court, on consent. Challenging the same, defendant 3
and the legal heirs of the deceased 2 nd defendant have
preferred an appeal as RFA 134/2025. The claim is that the
1st defendant had executed a Will dated 14.10.2010
bequeathing her rights in their favour, and also that the
concession even regarding the shares was erroneous. The
genuineness of the Will is under dispute. The said appeal,
2025:KER:56703
RFA 134/2025 has been dismissed today leaving open the
rights to move for review before the trial court. Be it
under the Will or otherwise, all the legal heirs of the
deceased are on the party array in this appeal. If the
supplementary preliminary decree proceedings are reopened by
the trial court, the issue regarding the Will and devolution
of the rights of the deceased are to be considered therein.
We do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal
fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A ORIGINAL OF THE WILL REGISTERED AS DEED
NO.357/2010 ON THE FILE OF SRO, PALAKKAD
DATED 14-10-2010
-----
