SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39475

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.T.SANKARAN, J
PADINHAREMANNIL THODIYIL HYMAVATHI AMMA – Appellant
Versus
PADINHAREMANNIL THODIYIL SUBADHRA AMMA – Respondent


O R D E R

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.147 of 1988, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri. The suit was for partition. The partible items are shown in two schedules, namely, schedule IIB and schedule IIC. The preliminary decree provides that the plaint IIB schedule property shall be divided into 22 shares and three shares out of the same shall be allotted to the plaintiff. The properties in plaint IIC schedule were directed to be divided into 20 shares and the plaintiff was allotted one share out of the 20 shares. It was also held that the plaintiff is entitled to get mesne profits. There was no appeal from the preliminary decree.

2. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.665 of 1990 to pass a final decree. A Commissioner was appointed, who submitted a report dated 13.7.1992. It would appear that another report dated 30.1.1995 (stated as report dated 1.2.1995 in the proceedings) was also submitted by the Commissioner. On the basis of the reports submitted by the Commissioner, the trial court passed the judgment and final decree.

3. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.241 of 1996 under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct the mistakes in the final decree.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top