Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PURAYATH ABU, S/O.LATE PURAYATH ALIKUTTY versus PURAYATH DECEASED ALIKUTTY'S DAUGHTER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PURAYATH ABU, S/O.LATE PURAYATH ALIKUTTY v. PURAYATH DECEASED ALIKUTTY'S DAUGHTER - WP(C) No. 24852 of 2007(H) [2007] RD-KL 16123 (20 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24852 of 2007(H)

1. PURAYATH ABU, S/O.LATE PURAYATH ALIKUTTY
... Petitioner

Vs

1. PURAYATH DECEASED ALIKUTTY'S DAUGHTER
... Respondent

2. KUNHIKATHIYA,W/O.CHAKKACHAN MUHAMMED,

3. CHOLAYIL ISMAIOL'S SON KUTTY MAMMU

4. CHILDREN-FATHIMA SUHARA, MARAYAMANGALAM

5. ISMAIL, MARAYAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM,

6. SHEMIRA, MARAYAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :20/08/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C).No. 24852 OF 2007 h

Dated this the 20th August, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is preferred against the order refusing to remit the commissioner's plan and report. The suit is one for partition. A commissioner was appointed in the final decree proceedings. He had submitted a plan and report. The first respondent in the final decree application is the writ petitioner before me and the commissioner has suggested to allot plot A with Kuzhikoors and tharavad house and while doing so he is bound to pay an amount of Rs.306.40 to respondents towards equalisation of shares. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits before me that the valuation shown for the trees which is proposed to be allotted to him is higher than what is shown for the same aged trees in the other schedule. The commissioner is a person who had inspected the property and seen the trees. It is also a well-known fact that some trees which are properly looked after and which are standing in a more fertile land will be having a better growth than the trees which are standing in not so fertile land or where it is under some shade or otherwise. The commissioner has gone and inspected the property. By remitting the commissioner's report it will not improve the WPC 24852/07 2 situation. Similarly for the tharavad house the valuation is shown as only Rs.40,000/-. If it is incorrect it can be proved by adducing evidence and not by remitting the commissioner's plan and report. So, I do not find any ground to remit the commissioner's plan and report but I make it clear that the writ petitioner is at liberty to adduce evidence regarding the valuation shown for the trees as well as for the house. Regarding the acquisition also he may adduce evidence and the court may decide it in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.