A. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. NANDAKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant Nos.18 and 20 in O. S. No.1129/1986 on the files of the First Additional Sub Court, Thrissur, have filed this appeal challenging the preliminary decree and judgment rendered by the said Court on 18/7/2011.

(2.) Two members of the Joint Hindu Family who had been following Cochin Nair Act, had instituted the suit on 20/10/1986 for partition of the plaint 'A' & 'B' scheduled properties which they claimed to be Thavazhi properties. On 31/3/1997, the learned Sub Judge had passed a preliminary decree and judgment directing the partition of plaint 'A' & 'B' scheduled properties into 910 shares allotting 56 shares each to the first plaintiff and defendants 39, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7. The defendants 19 to 28 were allotted 49 shares each, whereas 35 shares each were set apart to plaintiff No.2, defendants 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. The above decree and judgment were challenged before this Court in A.S.No.176/1998 by the 37th defendant, and A.S.No.407/1998 by the defendants 7 & 18. A Division Bench of this Court, as per the judgment rendered on 6/12/2010, allowed the appeal, set aside the preliminary decree and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for passing a preliminary decree taking into consideration the fact that the legal heirs of Kunjiyamma (the common ancestor) are entitled only to one half share in plaint 'B' scheduled property excluding sales conducted under Exts B2 to B4. So far as the plaint 'A' schedule property is concerned, the findings of the learned Sub Judge, and the allotment of shares were confirmed. Thus, the suit was remanded only for the purpose of redetermining the shares due to the respective parties in terms of the modified decree to be passed in tune with the observations of this Court in the said judgment.

(3.) In accordance with the aforesaid direction, the Trial Court afforded sufficient opportunities to both parties to adduce evidence and advance arguments, and passed the impugned decree and judgment dtd. 18/7/2011. The operative portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience and easy reference.