SATHYABHAMA Vs. VALSALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are stated to be the assignees of certain extent of land out of the plaint schedule properties involved in O.S.No.519/90, on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, which was one that had been filed by respondents seeking partition.

(2.) The appellants concede that they are not defendants in the suit, but that since they subsequently purchased the property from one of the sharers, they were arrayed as respondents 4 and 6 in the final decree proceedings. According to them, they had purchased 24 and odd cents of land out of the plaint schedule properties from defendant No.2, who was one of the sharers, and that they stake claim to the same on the strength of such sale. They however, concede that the 2 nd defendant was only entitled to 17.5 cents of land as per the final decree, which is conceded by all sides; but that since they had already purchased 24 and odd cents from him and constructed a building thereon, they were entitled to be allotted that extent and not 17.5 cents. On such basis, the appellants have filed this appeal challenging the final judgment and final decree in FDIA.4395/2013 in the aforementioned suit.

(3.) Sri.T.Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Vinod Ravindranathan, makes his submissions in tune with the afore narration of facts but asserted that since his clients had already purchased more than 24 cents from defendant No.2, the Trial Court ought to have, in equity, allotted the said extent of property to his clients, particularly because, admittedly, they had constructed a large building thereon. However, to a pointed question, the learned Senior Counsel conceded that when 17.5 cents were allotted to his clients, the area on which the building has been constructed has been fully given to them, but that by reducing the rest of the extent, the utility of the same has been attenuated considerably. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, reiteratinly prays that the final judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda be set aside and that the said Court be directed to allot his clients the extents of land that they had purchased from defendant No.2.