RADHAKRISHNAN NAMPOOTHIRI Vs. SREEDEVI ANTHARJANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and contesting respondents.

(2.) This appeal is filed against an order passed by the Sub Judge, Mavelikkara on I.A No.182 of 1989 in O.S No.94 of 198 The suit is one for partition. The appellant, who is the 5th defendant in the suit and who is also the 5th respondent in the final decree proceedings, has come with a contention that despite giving directions in the first round of litigation, viz; R.F.A No.269 of 2004, to the Commissioner to divide the properties equitably, the Commissioner thoroughly failed to do so. According to the learned counsel, the Commissioner had not only defied the directions in the aforementioned judgment, but also omitted to take into consideration the division of certain items which were specifically ordered in terms of the judgment passed by this Court, to be divided.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of original second plaintiff (Addl. respondents 28 to 34) would contend that they are being kept out of possession right from the date of suit and the matter is prolonged only at the instance of the 5th defendant as he is in possession of the entire property and he is prolonging the matter without any justification.