MOHAMMED THAMEEM Vs. PEERU MOHAMMED MEERA SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 7th defendant, as assignee from some of the defendants in a suit for partition has brought this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree of learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara in A.S.No.168 of 2008 setting aside the allotment made by the learned Additional Munsiff-II, Neyyattinkara and passing a final decree accepting plan No.2 (Ext.C2).

(2.) THERE was an earlier suit - O.S.No.492 of 1985 for partition between the parties (other than the appellant) and that suit was settled. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 got joint right over two cents while the remaining property was to go to THE other defendants. The present plaintiffs were defendants 12 to 14, 16 and 18 and they claimed 5/7 shares out of the two cents. Defendants 2 and 5 to 7 claimed that the 2nd defendant has 1/7 share in the said two cents. Defendants 3 and 4 claimed that there was a subsequent partition as per Ext.B6.

(3.) LEARNED counsel contends that plan No.1 was more acceptable since that was more equitable so far as division and allotment are concerned. It is also contended that the only objection raised by the plaintiffs to plan No.1 accepted by the trial court was that they did not get that much road frontage as the 2nd defendant (and consequently, the 7th defendant) got. According to the appellant, plan No.2 would show that there is road frontage for the plot allotted to the plaintiffs by the trial court as per plan No.1.