[Suit For Partition] Final Decree Court Can Deal With Excess Land Found In Possession Of Parties Along With Extent Covered In Title Deed: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court has stated that the final decree court in a suit for partition, has the jurisdiction to deal with the excess extent of land found in possession of parties, along with the extent specified in their title deed.A single judge bench of Justice C Jayachandran clarified that “it is well-nigh within the powers of the final decree court to deal with the excess extent of land...
The Kerala High Court has stated that the final decree court in a suit for partition, has the jurisdiction to deal with the excess extent of land found in possession of parties, along with the extent specified in their title deed.
A single judge bench of Justice C Jayachandran clarified that “it is well-nigh within the powers of the final decree court to deal with the excess extent of land found in the possession of the parties, along with the extent covered by their title deed”.
It was stated that the advocate commissioner had apportioned the excess extent found in possession of the petitioner while measuring out the property for final decree application.
Accordingly, it was argued that the excess extent was apportioned with 1/36 of the excess land being allotted to the respondent and the remaining extent allotted to the petitioner.
Following this, the petitioner's application to amend the plaint to alter the total extent of the property for partition, so as to include the excess extent was dismissed by the trial court.
The Bench added that an amendment to the plaint or the preliminary decree is warranted only for the reason that an excess extent in the possession of the parties has been found while measuring out the property for the purpose of the final decree.
“A preliminary decree only declares the rights/shares of the parties to the property, which is liable to be partitioned. If an excess extent is found in possession of the parties, the same is also liable to be partitioned” concluded the court.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 207
Case Title: Rajini and anr. v. Seetha and ors.
Case Number: OP(C) No. 1151 of 2021
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates P Sanjay, A Parvathi Menon, Biju Meenattoor, Paul Varghese, PA Mohammed Aslam, Kiran Narayanan, Prasoon Sunny, Rahul Raj P