KANAKAM VAMANA SHENOY Vs. GOPINATH SHENOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the II Addl.Sub Court, Ernakulam in I.A. No. 840/2006 in O.S. No. 312/1998 whereby it dismissed the application filed by the defendants for passing a supplemental final decree. The main ground on which the learned Sub Judge dismissed the application was that there cannot be any supplemental final decree. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to my attention to the decision of the Apex Court reported in Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, 2007 (2) SCC 355 : JT 2007 (1) SC 616 . In paragraph 8 it has been stated that there can be more than one final decree. A decree may be partly preliminary and partly final. Suppose the matter requires readjudication of the principal points it may not be possible to pass a supplemental decree. In certain cases the parties may have to file a fresh suit. So far as this case is concerned, in the preliminary decree, it declares that defendants are entitled to half share. Similarly the Commissioner, who had gone and inspected the property has also divided the property into D, E, F, G and suggested D and F schedule properties to be allotted to the defendants and E and G properties to the plaintiffs, C schedule property is a common pathway for all parties. So virtually every material necessary for passing a final decree and allotting shares to the defendants is available before court. There is no point in dragging the parties to unnecessary litigation. I am informed that the plaintiffs had already taken possession of E and G plots. By passing of a supplemental decree allotted D and F schedule in the Commissioner's report in favour of the defendants no hardship will be caused to the plaintiffs at all and their right and possession need not be disturbed also.