Kerala High Court
Lakshmi vs Vijayasankaran on 14 July, 2025
R.F.A.No.547/2014
1
2025:KER:51251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
RFA NO. 547 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS NO.397 OF 1988 OF PRINCIPAL
SUB COURT , PALAKKAD
APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS 3 & 4:
1 LAKSHMI, AGED 47 YEARS
D/O. MURKATH SREEDEVI AMMA, YAKKARA AMSOM, SANTHI NAGAR,
PALAKKAD -PIN 678 701.
2 JAYASREE, AGED 51 YEARS
D/O. MURKATH VIJAYALEKSHMI AMMA, YAKKARA AMSOM, SANTHI
NAGAR, PALAKKAD -6578 701.
BY ADV SHRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1,2,5& 6 AND DEFENDANTS 6 TO 13:
1 VIJAYASANKARAN, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. MURKATH SREEDEVI AMMA, FOZEOBORE ESTATE, TNHB QUARTERS,
BLOCK NO.5, MADRAS.
2 MURALI, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. MURKATH SREEDEVI AMMA, , YAKKARA AMSOM, SANTHI NAGAR,
PALAKKAD PIN 678 701.
3 RAVIKUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. MURKATH VIJAYALEKSHMI AMMA, , YAKKARA AMSOM, DESOM
SANTHI NAGAR, PALAKKAD PIN 678 701.
4 SRIKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. MOORKATH VIJAYALEKSHMI AMMA,
YAKKARA AMSOM,DESOM SANTHI NAGAR, PALAKKAD PIN 678 701.
R.F.A.No.547/2014
2
2025:KER:51251
5 M. MADHAVANKUTTY NAIR,AGED 74 YEARS
S/O.M. LEKSHMIKUTTI AMMA, YAKKARA AMSOM DESOM SANTHI NAGAR,
PALAKKAD PIN 678 701.
6 M. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.M. LEKSHMIKUTTI AMMA, YAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, SANTHI NAGAR,
PALAKKAD PIN 678 701.
7 M. SIVARAMANUNNI, AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. SREEDEVI AMMA, 9703, PARK LAND ROAD, BALTIMORE, MARY
LAND, 21234, U.S.A.(DELETED)
(7TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK
OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DT.29.05.2015 IN IA NO.524/2015)
8 K.R. VIJAYABHANU, S/O. LATE DAMODARAN NAIR, (DECEASED 2ND
DEFENDANT), KAMBRATU VEEDU, VENGANOOR P.O.,
P.O.THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM PIN 676 306.
9 KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O. LATE DAMODARAN NAIR, (DECEASED 2ND
DEFENDANT), KAMBRATU VEEDU, VENGANOOR P.O.,
P.O.THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM PIN 676 306.
10 K. GOPAKUMAR, S/O. LATE DAMODARAN NAIR, HIGH SCHOOL
QUARTERS, WARD 3/206, KUTHANNOOR, PALAKKAD PIN 678721.
11 N. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O. LATE DAMODARAN NAIR, 2ND FLOOR,
MOOKAMBIKA, SRI SAKTHI APARTMENT, KOTTAPPURAM, THRISSUR
PIN 680 001.
12 SEETHA DEVI, D/O. LATE DAMODARAN NAIR, 2ND FLOOR,
MOOKAMBIKA, SRI SAKTHI APARTMENT, KOTTAPPURAM, THRISSUR
PIN 680 001.
BY ADVS.
R11 AND R12 BY SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.S
R10 BY SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL
R10 BY SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.07.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.F.A.No.547/2014
3
2025:KER:51251
JUDGMENT
1. Appellants are the plaintiff Nos.3 & 4 in the suit. The respondents
are the plaintiffs 1, 2, 5 & 6 and the defendants 6 to 13. The suit
was filed for the partition of Plaint A & B schedule properties.
There are 12 items of immovable properties in the plaint A
schedule property and 9 items of movable properties in the plaint
B schedule.
2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule
properties on the allegations that the plaint A schedule properties
are a school and appurtenant land under the co-ownership and
joint possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants who are the
members of Thavazhi of the first defendant governed by Madras
Marumakkathayam Rule of Succession applicable to the Nair
2025:KER:51251
community. A partition was effected among the Thavazhi
members as per Partition Deed No.137/1958 of SRO
Kuzhalmannam. The plaint schedule properties were not
subjected to partition in the said Partition Deed and it was kept as
a common property. During the time of the said partition, the
second defendant as the Karanavar of the Thavazhi and being a
teacher, was looking after the affairs of the school. A Society by
the name Kuthannoor Educational Society was formed and later it
became dysfunctional. The second defendant took care of the
management of the school and took care of its affairs as Thavazhi
property. The facilities in the school including furniture thereof
were acquired out of Thavazhi funds. When the Partition Deed was
executed, the second defendant incorporated provisions to his
advantage neglecting the interest of the minor members of the
Thavazhi that by receiving 3/4th of the amounts spent for the
2025:KER:51251
school from him, the other members of the Thavazhi have to
release their rights over the school in favour of the second
defendant. Thereafter he preferred O.S.No.395/1983 to enforce
the said provision. Even though the properties were purchased for
the school, the Title Deeds thereof happened to be executed in
the name of the second defendant. Taking advantage of the same,
he is raising an unjustifiable claim and right over those properties.
Each of the plaintiffs and the defendants has 1/14 share over the
plaint schedule properties.
3. The plaintiffs claimed partition of the plaint schedule properties
and allotment of separate possession of the respective shares to
the plaintiffs and the defendants. In substance, the claim of the
plaintiffs is that the plaint schedule properties are the Thavazhi
2025:KER:51251
properties which are liable to be partitioned among the plaintiffs
and the defendants who are the members of the Thavazhi.
4. The suit was filed by six numbers of plaintiffs and 8 numbers of
defendants. Originally, the second defendant alone contested the
suit. On his death, the 11th defendant, who is one of his legal heirs,
contested the suit.
5. The defendants 1, and 3 to 7 filed Written Statement supporting
the partition sought by the plaintiffs. But they did not pay the
court fee for the separate allotment of their share.
6. The second defendant filed Written Statement contending, inter
alia, that the entire plaint schedule items are not properties of the
school. No movable or immovable assets was acquired for the
school out of the Thavazhi funds. The school building and the
landed properties of the school, movable assets of the school
2025:KER:51251
including furniture are the personal properties of the second
defendant, over which the plaintiffs and the other defendants
have no manner of right. The present suit is instituted as a
counterblast to O.S.No.395/1983 preferred by the second
defendant. After partition of the year 1958, the Thavazhi has come
to an end. There existed any other property as Thavazhi property
well before the partition and even after the partition. The school
and its assets were regarded by the members of the Thavazhi as
the personal properties of the second defendant. The second
defendant acquired the school and its properties much before the
execution of the Partition Deed of the year 1958. It was under the
direction of the father of the second defendant that provisions
were incorporated in the Partition Deed that out of the total
amount spent for the school ¾ is to be given by the second
defendant to the other members of the Thavazhi. The Society
2025:KER:51251
became extinct and the property is not vested with Society. He
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
7. During the pendency of the suit, the second defendant died on
16.11.2007 and his legal heirs were impleaded as the defendants
9 to 11 and the third defendant died and his legal heirs were
impleaded as defendants 12 & 13.
8. The 11th defendant filed Written Statement contending that
O.S.No.395/1983 filed by the second defendant was decreed in
favour of the second defendant. Appeal and Special leave
Petition preferred by the plaintiffs herein against the said
judgment and decree has also been dismissed. Pursuant to the
finality of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.395/1983, the 11th
defendant deposited the sum of Rs.41,202/- being the 3/4th
amount spent for the school, payable to the relatives of the
second defendant pursuant to the direction in the Partition Deed
2025:KER:51251
of 1958. Such a deposit was made by the 11th defendant, being
the legatee under the Will executed by the second defendant.
The plaintiffs are bound to execute a Release Deed in favour of
the 11th defendant in terms of the provisions in the Partition
Deed of 1958 and in compliance with the decree in
O.S.No.395/1983. As per the Will executed by the second
defendant, properties covered by Document Nos.34/1957,
317/1955, 79/1955, 78/1955, 80/1955, 376/1958 and
1460/1995 together with the buildings therein and managership
of the school therein are vested with the 11th defendant. The
said properties were the self-acquired own properties of the
deceased original second defendant over which neither the
plaintiffs nor the defendants have any manner of right. The
present suit is barred by res judicata and estoppel in view of the
finality of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.395/1983.
2025:KER:51251
9. No oral evidence was adduced by either side. From the side of the
plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. From the side of the
defendants, Exts.B1 to B6 were marked. The Commission Reports
were marked as Exts.C1 to C3 and the sketch was marked as
Ext.C3(a).
10.The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit is barred by
res judicata and constructive res judicata in view of
O.S.No.395/1983 instituted by the second defendant.
11.This Court had earlier allowed this Appeal in part as per judgment
dated 28.10.2021 remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for
fresh consideration finding that the decree in O.S.No.395/1983
which became final and conclusive was in respect of 2.18 Acres
scheduled therein as item Nos.1 to 6, whereas, the subject matter
of the present suit is 4.57 Acres of land included in 12 items in the
2025:KER:51251
plaint A schedule and hence there cannot be any res judicata with
respect to item Nos.7 to 12 scheduled in the plaint.
12.The 11th defendant filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and in Civil Appeal No.2122/2024, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court and
remanded the matter back to this Court to decide the matter on
all issues finding that this Court could have decided the matter
itself as this Court had all the powers to do that and that remand
should not be made as a matter of routine. It is also observed that
the learned counsel for the appellant would be at liberty to place
additional evidence before the High Court.
13.After remand from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the 10th
respondent/11th defendant filed I.A.No.2/2024 producing 6
documents as Annexure R10 (a) to (f) which are certified copies of
2025:KER:51251
certain deeds, with a prayer to accept those documents as
additional evidence in this Appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
The respondents 1 to 9 in the said I.A. filed Counter Affidavit to
I.A.No.2/2024. In the said petition, the 11th defendant claims that
six items, which are not included in the earlier O.S.No.395/1983,
which are item Nos.5, 7 and 9 to 12 in the present suit were owned
by his father - the second defendant or his mother, late Sarojini
Amma. It is stated that certified copy of the Title document with
respect to item Nos.5 & 7 in the plaint schedule is yet to be
received. It is stated that the said documents will be produced at
the earliest when they are made available by the authorities. Even
the numbers of the title documents with respect to item Nos.5 &
7 are not stated by the 10th respondent. The 10th respondent
claims that item Nos.10 & 11 were owned by his father as per
Document No.441/1961 of SRO Kuzhalmannam which is
2025:KER:51251
produced as Annexure R10(a). He claims that his father settled
item No.10 property as per Document Nos.2097/2003 and
1434/2002 of SRO Kuzhalmannam as per Annexure R10(b) & (c).
He claims that item No.11 was settled in favour of him by his
father as per Document No.355/2003 of SRO Kuzhalmannam as
per Annexure R10(d). He claims that Item No.12 belonged to his
mother as per Document No.1580/1958 of SRO Palakkad, which
is produced as Annexure R10(e). He claims that the said property
was settled in his favour by his mother as per Document
No.2308/1995 of SRO Kuzhalmannam as per Annexure R10(f). In
the affidavit, the averment is to the effect that the said documents
are vital and material for the proper adjudication of the lis and for
arriving at a just conclusion and it was a bona fide mistake on his
part not to have produced the documents despite due diligence.
2025:KER:51251
14.I heard the learned counsel for the appellants/ plaintiff Nos.3 & 4,
Sri. C. Chandrasekharan and the learned counsel for the 10th
respondent/ 11th defendant, Sri. Vinod Bhat.
15.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that only six
items out of the 12 items were included in the earlier suit. There
could not be any res judicata with respect to the remaining items.
There is specific finding in Ext.B3 judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in A.F.A.No.37/2002 that the school properties are
Thavazhi properties. There is nothing in evidence to prove that the
plaint schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the
2nd defendant. The 11th defendant claimed right over the plaint
schedule properties by a Will executed by the 2nd defendant. No
such Will was produced before the Trial Court. Along with I.A.
No.2/2024, the 11th defendant has produced six documents.
2025:KER:51251
Neither the 2nd defendant nor the 11th defendant has claimed any
right on the strength of these documents before the Trial Court.
The 11th defendant has not made out any case for admission of
those documents as additional evidence in this appeal under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Even going by the averments in
I.A.No.2/2024, the defendants do not know as to how he claims
right over Items Nos.5 and 7. I.A.No.2/2024 is liable to be
dismissed. The appeal is liable to be allowed, ordering partition of
plaint A schedule Item Nos.5,7 & 9 to 12, which were not included
in the earlier O.S No.395/1983.
16.On the other hand, the Counsel for the 10th respondent/11th
defendant contended that, at present, there is no quarrel with
respect to Item Nos.1 to 4, 6 & 8 in the Plaint A schedule, which
are included in the earlier suit O.S.No.395/1983. The remaining
2025:KER:51251
Item Nos.5,7 & 9 to 12 in the Plaint A schedule, except Item No.9,
belonged to the original second defendant/mother of the 11th
defendant as per the old documents. Item No.9 belongs to the 7th
defendant. The 11th defendant could find out the title of Item
Nos.10,11 and 12, obtained certified copies of the same and
produced the same along with I.A.No.2/2024. Title documents of
Item Nos. 5 & 7 are yet to be found. The documents produced
along with I.A.No.2/2024 would prove that Item Nos.10 and 11 are
the self-acquired properties of the second defendant and Item
No.12 is the property of the mother of the 11th defendant. Those
documents are essential to decide the controversy involved in this
appeal. I.A. No.2/2024 is liable to be allowed and the appeal is
liable to be dismissed, finding that the plaint schedule properties
are not available for partition as they are not Thavazhi properties.
2025:KER:51251
17.I have considered the rival contentions.
18.Going by the arguments addressed before me, the appellants are
claiming partition of Item Nos.5,7 & 9 to 12 in the Plaint A
schedule in this appeal. Even according to the contesting 11th
defendant, Item No.9 belongs to the 7th defendant. The 11th
defendant does not claim any right over Item No.9. The 7 th
defendant has not raised any claim on Item No.9. Hence, I find
that there is no dispute with respect to the partibility of Item No.9.
Hence the partibility of Item Nos.5,7 & 10 to 12 in the Plaint A
schedule alone is the issue to be considered.
19.In view of the contentions advanced before me, the following
points arise for determination in this appeal.
1. Whether the documents produced along with I.A.No.2/2024 are liable to be
considered in this Appeal, accepting it as additional evidence?
2025:KER:51251
2. Whether Item Nos.5,7 & 10 to 12 in the Plaint A schedule are Thavazhi
properties available for partition or the self-acquired properties of the
second defendant?
3. If Item Nos.5,7 & 10 to 12 in the Plaint A schedule are available for partition,
what are the shares entitled to the parties to the suit?
POINT NO.1
20.When the Appellate Court receives an application to accept
additional evidence under Order 47 Rule 27 CPC, the same is to
be considered and disposed of along with the appeal. Only if the
Appellate Court decides to accept the documents produced as
additional evidence marking the same in evidence, the Appellate
Court is liable to consider those documents while disposing the
appeal. The 10th respondent has filed I.A.No.2/2024 to accept
certified copies of six registered documents in evidence on
2025:KER:51251
04.11.2024, subsequent to the remand of the case from the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as per Order dated 12.02.2024. In the
remand order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given liberty to the
10th respondent to place additional evidence before the High
Court. When additional evidence are placed before this Court, it
is for this Court to consider whether it is liable to accepted in
evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The question is whether
the 11th defendant has satisfied the conditions for accepting the
additional evidence as required under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The
averments in I.A.No.2/2024 are that the said documents are vital
and material for proper adjudication of the lis and for arriving at
the just conclusion and that it was a bona fide mistake on his part
not to produce the documents despite due diligence. I am of the
view that the said averments are quite insufficient to accept the
additional evidence. The 11th defendant has not stated the due
2025:KER:51251
diligence undertaken by him to produce the said documents
before the Trial Court and his inability to produce the same. The
suit is of the year 1988. The previous suit O.S.No.395/1983 with
respect to part of the plaint schedule properties started in the year
1983. During the pendency of the suit, the present suit is filed. The
parties were well aware of the contentions since the year 1983.
Neither the original 2nd defendant nor the 11th defendant, who is
one of the legal heirs of the original second defendant, attempted
to produce any document to prove their contention that the plaint
schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the
second defendant. No pleading was made with reference to those
documents. There is no pleading that the plaint schedule Item
no.12 belonged to the mother of the 11th defendant. It is quite
unbelievable that they were not aware of the title deeds of the
properties in which the school conducted by them is situated. The
2025:KER:51251
suit was disposed of only on 22.02.2014. They had enough time to
procure and produce the relevant documents before the Trial
Court. Even before this Court, the 11th defendant thought of
producing the above documents only after remand from the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2024. Even now, the 11th
defendant is in search of the title deeds of Item Nos. 5 and 7. If
these documents are accepted in evidence, the matter will have
to be remanded to the Trial Court to test these documents in trial.
In the remand order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly
observed that this Court could have decided the matter itself as it
had all the powers to do that and that remand should not be made
as a matter of routine, as it seems to have been done in this case.
This Court is specifically directed to decide the first appeal on all
the issues. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble
Court, I am of the view that remand should not be made in this suit
2025:KER:51251
of the year 1988 to enable the 11th defendant to prove his
contention in the Trial with the aid of the additional documents
produced along with I.A.No.2/2024 when it is proved before this
Court that there is clear laches and negligence on the part of the
second defendant and the 11th defendant to produce the
additional documents which they claim as relevant documents.
Another thing is that nothing is pleaded about these additional
documents either in the Written Statement of the second
defendant or in the Written Statement of the 11th defendant. The 11th
defendant stated in his Written Statement that as per the Will executed
by the second defendant, properties covered by Document
Nos.34/1957, 317/1955, 79/1955, 78/1955, 80/1955, 376/1958 and
1460/1995 together with the buildings therein and managership of the
school therein are vested with the 11th defendant. The additional
documents sought to be accepted in evidence do not find a place in
2025:KER:51251
the above list. Though the 11th defendant claimed right over the
school properties as per a Will executed by the second defendant,
no such Will is produced. The date or number of such a Will is not
even pleaded. The additional documents now produced are
beyond the pleadings and run counter to the pleadings of the 11th
defendant in his Written Statement. On account of these reasons,
I have dismissed I.A.No.2/2024 by separate order and hence the
additional documents produced along with I.A.No.2/2024 are not
liable to be considered in this Appeal.
POINT NO.2
21.The present suit was instituted before the disposal of
O.S.No.395/1983. O.S.No.395/1983 was filed by the second
defendant herein to enforce clause No.14 in the Partition Deed of
the year 1958 to compel the other members of Thavazhi, who were
2025:KER:51251
the defendants in the said suit, to execute release deeds in favour
of the second defendant herein with respect to the school
property. O.S.No.395/1983 was decreed as per judgment dated
16.10.1989. In the said case, the second defendant herein, as
plaintiff therein, included six items of property in which the school
is situated. The second defendant claimed that those items
belonged to him. The defendants therein contended that six more
items are part of the school property and the same were left out in
the plaint schedule. They included those items in their Written
Statement. The Trial Court in Ext.B1 judgment in O.S.No.395/1983
specifically held that when Ext.A1 therein (Partition Deed of 1958)
was executed, the school was really the asset of the Thavazhi
notwithstanding Exts.A2 to A6 in the name of the plaintiff therein
and that the school did not retain the character of Thavazhi
property after the execution of Ext.A1 Partition Deed therein. It is
2025:KER:51251
also found that after 1958, Thavazhi as such no longer exists.
Ultimately decree was granted in favour of the plaintiff therein in
view of Clause 14 in Ext.A1 Partition Deed therein directing the
plaintiff therein to deposit Rs.41,202/- towards the interest of the
defendants over the plaint schedule properties and school
building and other items within three months and directing the
defendants therein to execute release deeds releasing all their
interest over the said properties to the plaintiff on deposit of the
said amount. Ext.B1 was confirmed by the Single Judge of this
Court in Ext.B4 and further confirmed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Ext.B3.
22.The question to be considered is the status of Item Nos.5,7 & 10
to 12 in the Plaint A schedule with reference to the Partition Deed
of 1958. Neither side has produced the Partition Deed of the year
2025:KER:51251
1958. From Ext.B1 Judgment in O.S No.395/1983, Ext.B4 judgment
in A.S.No.170/1990 and Ext.B3 judgment in A.F.A No.37/2002, it is
clear that the school property was kept common and was not
partitioned in the Partition Deed of 1958. The Division Bench of
this Court in Ext.B3 has specifically found that the school property
was a Thavazhi property and that the members of Thavazhi are
tenants in common from the date of the Partition Deed of 1958 in
relation to the suit property therein. Going by the description in the
plaint, Item Nos.5,7 & 10 to 12 in the Plaint A schedule are part of
school properties. The second defendant herein filed O.S
No.395/1983 to enforce Clause 14 of the Partition Deed by getting
release deeds from other members only with respect to six items
of properties which are Item Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 herein. With
respect to the remaining item Nos.5,7 & 9 to 12 in the Plaint A
schedule, the second defendant did not seek enforcement of
2025:KER:51251
clause 14 of the Partition Deed of 1958. Those properties
continued to be held by the members of the Thavazhi as tenants
in common. They are liable to be partitioned among the plaintiffs
and the defendants who are the members of the Thavazhi. Hence,
I hold that Item Nos.5,7 & 9 to 12 in the Plaint A schedule are
available for partition among the members of the Thavazhi of the
1st defendant.
POINT NO.3
23.It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs 1 to 6 and defendants 1 to 8
are the members of the Thavazhi of the 1st defendant. Each of the
plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 8 is entitled to get 1/14 share in the
Item Nos.5,7 & 9 to 12 in the Plaint A schedule. Since the second
defendant has died, his share is to be allotted to the defendants 9
to 11 jointly. Since the third defendant has died, his share is to be
2025:KER:51251
allotted to the defendants 12 &13 jointly. It is seen that the court
fee is paid only by the plaintiffs, they alone are entitled to get
separate share.
24.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Appeal is allowed, setting
aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreeing
the suit in part, passing a Preliminary Decree for Partition as
follows.
1. Item Nos.5,7 & 9 to 12 in the Plaint A schedule are liable to be
partitioned in 14 shares allotting separate possession of 1/14
shares to each of the six plaintiffs and allotting 8/14 shares
jointly to the defendants 1 & 4 to 12, in which the defendants 1
& 4 to 8 will have 1/14 shares each, the defendants 9 to 11
together will have 1/14 share and the defendants 12 & 13
together will have 1/14 share.
2025:KER:51251
2. The parties are allowed to apply for a final decree in
accordance with the Preliminary Decree.
3. The cost of the suit shall come out of the estate.
4. The suit is adjourned sine die.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
jma
2025:KER:51251
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12-02-2024 IN SLP (C)
NO.1166/2022 OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04-10-2024 IN
M.A.2049/2024 IN CIVIL APPEAL 2122/2024 OF HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Annexure-R10(a) CERTIFIED COPY OF DEED NO.441/1961, SRO
KUZHALMANNAM DATED 23-05-1961 (WITH CERTIFIED
COPY)
Annexure-R10(b) CERTIFIED COPY OF DEED NO. 2097/2003, SRO
KUZHALMANNAM DATED 15-10-2003 (WITH LEGIBLE
HANDWRITTEN COPY)
Annexure-R10(c) CERTIFIED COPY OF DEED NO. 1434/2002, SRO
KUZHALMANNAM DATED 05-08-2002 (WITH TYPED COPY)
Annexure-R10(d) CERTIFIED COPY OF DEED NO.355/2003, SRO
KUZHALMANNAM DATED 14-01-2003(WITH TYPED COPY)
Annexure-R10(e) CERTIFIED COPY OF DEED NO. 1580/1958, SRO PALAKKAD
DATED 11-06-1958 (WITH LEGIBLE HAND WRITTEN COPY)
Annexure-R10(f) CERTIFIED COPY OF DEED NO. 2308/1998, SRO
KUZHALMANNAM DATED 04-12-1998(WITH LEGIBLE HAND
WRITTEN COPY)
