RAJU VILLENTAVIDA Vs. DEVI VILLENTAVIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the final decree passed by the courts below, the first defendant in a suit for partition has filed this appeal challenging the allotment made by the courts below. The preliminary decree directs division of the plaint schedule property measuring about 12 cents into 20 equal shares and to allot 4 such shares to the first defendant (the appellant herein) and the remaining 12 such shares to respondents 2 to 7 in the final decree application. In the final decree proceedings Advocate Commissioner was deputed to effect division of the property. Since rival contentions were raised by the parties before the Advocate Commissioner, two modes were suggested by the Advocate Commissioner and reports were filed. Reports and plans were marked as Exts. C1 to C7 (a). The appellant herein was examined as RW1 and the third respondent in this R.S.A. was examined as RW2. The trial court found that the second suggestion made by the Advocate Commissioner is more feasible, reasonable and acceptable and as such that mode was accepted and a final decree was passed directing allotment of plot A in Ext. C2 plan to the plaintiff and plot B in Ext. C2 plan to the appellant herein. Plot C and D in that plan were allotted to respondents 2 to 7 (defendants 2 to 7). Directions are made to respondents 2 to 7 to pay certain amounts to the plaintiff and also to the appellant herein for equalisation of shares.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that the house situated in the plaint schedule property which is in plot C should have been allotted to the share of the appellant herein. It was contended that he had spent huge amount for the family consisting of other sharers and also huge amount for repair and maintenance of the house . But the courts below were not convinced of the grounds so taken by the appellant. Though the appellant who was examined as RW1 has stated that he has no other land and he has no financial capacity to construct a building, that was found against. It was found that the appellant's wife was having a property and it was sold recently. Besides, appellant's two daughters were already given in marriage. His son who is a marble worker is also staying along with the appellant. The third respondent in the final decree petitioner who was examined as RW2 is admittedly a spinster. Comparared to the financial capacity of RW1 and RW2, it was found that RW1 was having financial capacity to construct a house in the plot allotted to him and that RW2 is a poor lady having no financial capacity to construct a house.

(3.) IN the course of the argument and discussion it could be found that after the proposed widening of the road the property in question would be abutting the highway and so one cent of land will fetch more than Rs. 5 lakhs. It was not disputed that the land value has gone up to a great extent. The land was allotted almost in proportion to the extent the sharers were entitled to get. However, in order to alleviate the grievance it would just and proper that the respondents 2 to 7 and the plaintiff are directed to pay some more amount to the appellant herein and to the plaintiff.