THANKAPPAN Vs. CHANDRAMATHY PUKKUMPURATH HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties in this are spouses. There is a property acquired during coverture in the joint names of both the parties. There is acrimony in the relationship. The wife has sued for partition. The husband has set up a case that the property exclusively belongs to him and the inclusion of her name in the document of acquisition does not really confer any right on her. The controversy is rife. It has not been resolved.

(2.) At this stage, the court below appears to have accepted the request of the wife to depute a Commissioner to ascertain how the partition can be effected by metes and bounds. This is against the orders passed by the Family Court. A copy of the order is produced as Ext.P6.

(3.) There could not possibly be any doubt that ideally only after the adjudication is over about the existence of the right for partition and the passing of a preliminary decree alone the court need to proceed to the next stage of attempting to effect a partition by metes and bounds. But the question is not whether the ideal course has been followed or not. The short question here is whether the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of superintendence and control over the subordinate courts vested in this Court must be invoked and exercised.