A.J.MARGARET LUKOSE v. BINDHU GALNCY

W/O.MR.MATHEW,AGED 57 YEARS RESIDING AT PUTHIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE NEAR COMMUNITY HALL EDAYAKUNNAM,SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O PINCODE 682 027

56. ELIZABETH, W/O.T.R.AUGUSTINE, AGED 5 YEARS RESIDING AT THACHUTHARA HOUSE QUARTERS B-29 PANAMBILLY NAGAR P.O COCHIN 682 030

57. P.P.ANTONY AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE COASTAL ROAD,NETTOOR P.O, COCHIN 682 020

58. P.P.FRANCIS, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE CHEMPAKKARA CHURCH ROAD MARADU NORTH MARADU P.O COCHIN 682 304

59. P.P.CLEETUS, AGED 49 YEARS RESIDING AT PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE S.E.LAVANDA SKYLINE RIVER DALE APARTMENT POONITHURA P.O COCHIN 682 031

60. BEENA W/O.V.J.LAWRENCE, AGED 47 YEARS RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,MUNDAMVELI P.O COCHIN

61. P.P.JOSSY AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE UDAYAMPEROOR P.O, VIA THRIPPOONITHURA

62. V.P.RAPHAEL, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE MARADU P.O,COCHIN 682 304

63. P.P.JAMES, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE MARADU P.O,COCHIN 682 304 R,R33-36 BY SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR & K.HARILAL, JJ. .......................................................... R.F.A. No. 723 of 2011 ........................................................ Dated: 8-3-2012 Judgment Ramkumar, J. The appellants who are the legal representatives of the 13th defendant challenge the order dated 17-1-2011 passed by the Sub Court, Ernakulam dismissing I.A. 8281 of 2010 in I.A. No. 3950 of 1998 in O.S. 654 of 1995. The said suit was one for partition. Originally there were 10 sharers. Preliminary decree was passed on 31-1-1998 directing division of the property into 10 shares. Subsequently the preliminary deree was corrected and instead of 10 shares the total shares was ordered to be 9. As per the preliminary decree defendants 13 to 18 together are entitled to 1/9 shares over the decree schedule property. While so, the 13th defendant died in the year 2003. Defendants 14 to 18 are her legal representatives. Subsequently, the 16th defendant who is one of the legal representatives of the 13th defendant also died and his R.F.A. No. 723 of 2011 -:2:- Legal Representatives were impleaded as respondents 40 to 42 and were subsequently re-arrayed as respondents 45 to 47. The legal representatives of the 13th and 16th defendants together filed an I.A. contending that the 1/9th share which was due to defendants 13 to 18 may be divided into 5 equal shares and one such share be allotted to each of respondents 4, 15, 17 and 18 and the 5th share be alotted to respondents 45 to 47 jointly . The said application was dismissed as per the impugned order. It is the said order which is assailed in this appeal.

2. This is a suit of year 1995 and the preliminary decree was passed as early as on 31-1-1998. If the petition filed by the appellants were to be allowed by the final decree court , it will again dislocate the work already done by the Commissioner deputed by the final decree court and the matter will have to be remitted again to the Commissioner for re-calculation etc. There is also the possibility of other group of sharers coming out with similar petitions and that may further dislocate the work of the court and delay the passing of the final decree. That apart, if the R.F.A. No. 723 of 2011 -:3:- petition by the appellants were to be allowed, there is also the possibility of their getting some advantage or edge over the other sharers. All this can be averted by relegating the appellants to a separate suit after the final decree is passed. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the court permitting all the appellants to file separate suits for separate allotment of shares inter se between the members of their group to which 1/9 shares stands allotted as per the preliminary decree. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Dated this the 8th day of March, 2012. Sd/-V. Ramkumar, Judge. Sd/- K. Harilal, Judge. ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Judge R.F.A. No. 723 of 2011 -:4:- R.F.A. No. 723 of 2011 -:5:-