KARATTIL AMMAD KOYA Vs. KARATTIL AYAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second appeal is by the defendant. Suit is one for partition. Respondent plaintiff is his direct brother. They are admittedly joint lessees entitled to the suit property in equal halves. The appellant's contentions are:

(2.) Trial Court rejected the pleas of oral partition and adverse possession. These findings were confirmed in appeal. Claim for value of improvements was allowed by the Trial Court. Allowing the cross objection filed by the respondent, the claim for value of improvements was turned down by the appellate court. But a direction was made that, as far as possible, the property in the possession of the appellant will be allotted to his share without valuing the improvements effected by him. Separate possession pleaded by the appellant was accepted by both the courts below. That factual finding must be treated as final and conclusive.

(3.) The finding against oral partition also is beyond interference. It is not only a conclusion in the absence of sufficient evidence, but the result of a successful plea of res judicata also. O. S. No. 761 of 1966 was filed by the jenmi for realisation of rent of the entire premises. Appellant was the first defendant and respondent was the second defendant. Appellant pleaded oral partition and said that he is liable only for the proportionate rent for the premises in his possession. Respondent denied the oral partition. Both were necessary parties to that suit. Claim of the jenmi was on the original lease to get the entire rent from both the tenants jointly and severally charged 3 on the entire premises. In order to consider and allow or reject that claim, a decision on the conflict between the defendants regarding oral partition was necessary. That was decided, as Exts. A9 and 10 judgment and decree show. The oral partition was found against and the relief claimed by the plaintiff was granted. Claim of the appellant is that Exts. A9 and 10 will not operate as res judicata.