Final decrees in partition cases require current property valuations to ensure equitable distribution and compliance with procedural guidelines.

J U D G M E N T

Claiming 6/8th share over the decree scheduled property, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.35/1963 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Irinjalakuda. It seems that thereafter, the case has a chequered career. The matter had, more than ones, went up to the Apex Court.

2. It seems that on 30.03.1967 the court below has passed a preliminary decree which was subjected to an appeal before this Court as A.S.No.80/1968. The appeal was ultimately dismissed on 10.07.1972. Thereafter, before the court below I.A.No.1462/1973 was filed by the plaintiffs in the suit for the passing of the final decree. In the mean time, the appellants had approached the Apex Court through Civil Appeal No.1197/74. Leave was granted, the matter was admitted, and the Civil Appeal was allowed by the Apex Court on 10.05.1996, and the matter was remanded to this Court. A.S.No.80/68 was once again revived and restored, and again after hearing, this Court dismissed the appeal subject to some modifications prescribed in paragraph 33 of the judgment of this Court.

3. Paragraph 33 of the judgment of this Court in A.S.No.80/68 has been extracted in paragraph No.3 of the appeal memorandum which reads:

“33. …..... For improvements in the area which have to be normally surrendered to the plaintiffs on final decree, we are of pinion that value of improvements were normally assessed not on the basis of cost of improvements; but, value determined in accordance with the accepted principles. Therefore, 1st defendant will be entitled to the value of improvement on that portion of the property which has to be surrendered to the plaintiffs and not merely the cost of improvements. Except with regard to the above change, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”

4. The matter did not stop there. Again the appellants went up to the Apex Court with Civil Appeal No.7733/1997. Again leave was granted, the matter was admitted, and ultimately the Apex Court dismissed the appeal with some observations to be considered by the court below in carrying out a partition in the final decree. The said observations are also extracted in paragraph 3 of the appeal memorandum which reads:

“..... We, however, make it clear that in the final decree proceedings, it shall be open to the appellants to make application in accordance with law to adjust equities, including the direction whether the house build by them could be allotted to their share. We do not wish to express any opinion and it shall be open to the court dealing with the final decree proceedings to pass appropriate orders having due regard to equities as well.”

5. Thereafter, the proceedings in the final decree again resumed and the court below proceeded with I.A.No.1462/73. In the meantime, a Commissioner was appointed by the court below for carrying out the partition by metes and bounds. It seems that the Commissioner had filed Ext.C1 report with a plan appended with it on 08.12.1975. The court below has chosen to accept Ext.C1 Commissioner's report, based on which the court below has passed the impugned final decree on 20.12.2004 and the same is under challenge in this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel Sri.P.B.Krishnan for the appellants and Sri.K. Ramachandran and Sri.P.R. Venkatesh for the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants is mainly attacking the impugned final judgment on the ground that, (1) additional respondents 17 and 18 were not even served notice at the time when the court below has chosen to pass the final decree, (2) the court below should not have relied on Ext.C1 report, in which a valuation as on 08.12.1975 was made, (3) the court below has ignored the modifications to be carried out as per the guidelines given by this Court in the judgment in A.S.80/68 after remand, (4) the court below has ignored the observations and guidelines contained in the judgment in Civil Appeal No.7733/97 passed by the Apex Court, and (5) the court below has dismissed the application filed by the appellants before the