PATHUMMA AND ORS. Vs. MUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What does the expression "reservation" in a partition suit mean Is it synonymous with "equities" to be worked out at the time of allotment of shares These are the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

(2.) Dispute between the parties lie in a narrow compass. The suit is one for partition of immovable property and a house situated thereon. Appellants are the defendants in the suit. Respondent (plaintiff) is the brother of the appellants. The suit property originally belonged to their father. In a partition effected between the sharers in 1992, the suit property was kept in common. Later, four sisters of the respondent released their rights in favor of him as per a registered document. The appellants were not willing to part with their shares. They were also not prepared to partition the property. In that situation, the suit was filed by the respondent.

(3.) In the written statement, the appellants admitted that the plaint schedule property is partible. There is no dispute regarding the shares also. The respondent is entitled to get 6/9 shares. Factum of release of shares by other co-owners is also undisputed. The respondent claimed that he, being the major share holder, is entitled to get the house situated in the property, reserved in his name; whereas the appellants would contend that the plaint schedule property is liable to be sold in public auction as partition by metes and bounds is impracticable and the sale proceeds has to be divided among the sharers.