MAROLI BALAN Vs. MAROLI DANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in O. S. No. 95 of 1984, Sub Court, tellicherry is the appellant. THE suit was one for partition of the plaint schedule items A to C, namely 50 cents of land where a school is situate, the moveables therein and the management of the school. THE property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. In Ext. Al partition deed dated 12-8-1983, Edakkanam L. P. School and 50 cents of land, where the said school is situated and the moveables therein and also the management of the said school, were kept in common (A Schedule ). THE first defendant was authorised as the nominee of the proprietors to manage the school, to take the agricultural income from the holding and after meeting the expenses to divide the surplus among the co-owners. THE first defendant is the eldest member of the family. He is also a teacher in the same school. Without caring for the other co-owners the first defendant is mismanaging the school and acting in his own self-interest. On these and other grounds, the suit was laid seeking partition and separate allotment of their 4/5 share to the plaintiffs in the suit properties. THE second defendant Assistant Educational officer, Iritty was ex parte. THE first defendant raised many contentions. One of the contentions taken was that the suit is not maintainable. It was contended that the suit for partition of the school and its properties is not maintainable in view of S. 6 of the Kerala Education Act. This plea was negatived by the court below. THE court below held that the suit is maintainable. It further held that the subject matter being a school and the land appurtenant to it, it cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds. It was felt that the proper course is to auction the suit properties, between the plaintiffs and the first defendant and then apportion the sale proceeds in proportion to the shares of the respective sharers. THE first defendant has come up in appeal.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant (1st defendant) contended that the court below was in error in holding that the suit is maintainable. It was also contended that the court below was not justified in ordering auction of the suit properties between the plaintiffs and the first defendant. This may result in the effacement of the school and so the court below should not have ordered the auction of the properties.

(3.) NO other contention was raised by the appellant's counsel. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed is limine. Dismissed. . .