BHASKARAN Vs. KUCHU MUHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE property left behind by one Aboobacker who died in the year 1981 is sought to be partitioned. The plaintiffs are the mother and brother of Aboobacker and defendant Nos.1,2 and 13 to 16 are alleged to be the other legal heirs. The first defendant sold her share of the property to the second defendant who in turn alienated the shares in favour of defendant Nos 3 and 4. They assigned the property to defendant No.5 who in turn assigned the same to defendant No.6. Defendant No.6 assigned the property to defendant No.7 who in turn assigned portions thereof to defendant Nos.8 to 12. Thus defendant Nos. 3 to 12 are assignee strangers.

(2.) THE suit for partition in OS No.53/2011 has been filed asserting joint possession with all the legal heirs of deceased Aboobacker. This is evident by Para.17 of the plaint produced as Ext.P1 and the extent of the plaint schedule property is quite large. It is trite law that only the averments in the plaint govern the payment of court fee. The plaint also contain averments to the effect that the sale deeds in favour of strangers have no legal sanctity. Even otherwise an assignee from a co-sharer is also a co-sharer in law. There is no necessity for the plaintiffs under such circumstances to pay court fee for recovery of possession.

(3.) NOTHING said in this judgment will affect the right of the stranger alienees to raise contentions based on adverse possession and limitation or the right of others to dispute partibility.