PARUKUTTY AMMA Vs. VELU NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second claimant (B party) in L. A. R. 65/81 of the subordinate Judge's Court, Trichur is the appellant herein.

(2.) 0. 4690 hectares of land with improvements therein in survey No. 1149 of Venganelloor Village has been acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 1,10,034-70 as compensation inclusive of solatium to claimants 1 to 3 in equal share and passed the award. 4th claimant, brother of first claimant, filed an application before the Land acquisition Officer putting forward the claim to 1/4 share in the compensation amount and requesting reference to the Land Acquisition Court in the matter of apportionment.

(3.) THE second claimant examined as P. W. 1 purported to speak to the oral partition. Her evidence was sought to be supported by one of the alleged mediators examined as P. W. 2. P. W. 1 deposed that in regard to the oral partition a document had been prepared and it was in her custody, but the document was not produced in court. Certainly an adverse inference could be legitimately drawn against her on that account. THE case of oral partition was denied by the 4th claimant examined as D. W. 1. If oral partition had been entered into as early as 1972, there must be separate payment of land revenue, which must be evidenced by documents. THEre must be other documentary evidence in support of management. No such documents were produced before the court below. In these circumstances we do not find anything wrong in the finding of the court below against the case of oral partition. If that be so, the apportionment made by the court below cannot be interfered with.