2025:KER:13532 RFA No.460/2018 ..1.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946 RFA NO. 460 OF 2018 AGAINST THE DECREE DATED 06.02.2017 IN OS NO.969 OF 2012 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA APPELLANTS/2 nd DEFENDANT: *1 UMESH, AGED 49 YEARS (DIED) S/O LATE KUTHUPALAKKAL SANKARANKUTTY, GANDHI NAGAR, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2 SUNITHA AGED 44 YEARS W/O. LATE UMESH, KOOTHUPALAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD PO, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680721 3 AKARSHA AGED 11 YEARS S/O. LATE UMESH, KOOTHUPALAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD PO, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, SUNITHA ADED 44 YEARS, W/O. LATE UMESH, KOOTHUPALAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD PO, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 680721 4 SREEBARATH K.U. AGED 10 YEARS S/O. LATE UMESH, KOOTHUPALAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD PO, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680721, MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, SUNITHA, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. LATE UMESH, KOOTHUPALAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD PO, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.- 2025:KER:13532 RFA No.460/2018 ..2.. 680721 * THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 VIDE ORDER DATED 5/9/2024 IN IA 1/24. BY ADVS. K.SURESH BABU (KANDENGHAT) ELDHO VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1,3&4: 1 JAGATHY BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS W/O CHAKKMATTIL BALAKRISHNAN, EDATHIRUTHY P.O AND VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680664. 2 SATHY, AGED 61 YEARS THAICHUVALAPPIL SUKUMARAN, PORUMBISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680664. 3 ANILA, AGED 52 YEARS W/O.POTTEKKAT MURALEEDHARAN, KANDASSANKADAVU P.O., MANALUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680664. 4 LETHA, AGED 46 YEARS W/O.SURESH KUMAR, C/O.SATHY SUKUMARAN, PORUMBISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680664. 5 DEEPA, AGED 38 YEARS W/O.IYYANI YATHEESH, NATTIKA P.O., AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680664. **6 SAROJINI, AGED 78 YEARS (DIED) W/O.LATE KUTHUPALAKKAL SANKARANKUTTY, GANDHI NAGAR, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680664 ** IT IS RECORDED THAT R6 DIED, AND THE APPELLANTS AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SIXTH RESPONDENT, VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.20124 IN MEMO DATED 15.10.2024 2025:KER:13532 RFA No.460/2018 ..3.. 7 MUKESH, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.LATE KUTHUPALAKKAL SANKARANKUTTY, GANDHI NAGAR, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680664. 8 VANAJA, AGED 48 YEARS D/O.LATE KUTHUPALAKKAL SANKARANKUTTY, GANDHI NAGAR, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH P.O., IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680664. BY ADV SMT.JAYASREE K.P. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 18.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:13532 RFA No.460/2018 ..4.. SATHISH NINAN & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.F.A. No.460 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of February, 2025 JUDGMENT SATHISH NINAN, J. The preliminary decree in a suit for partition is under challenge by the second defendant. 2. The plaint schedule properties belonged to late Sri.Kuthupalakkal Sankarankutty. The first defendant is his wife, and the plaintiffs and the other defendants are their children. Sankarankutty died intestate. The plaintiffs seek for partition of the properties. 3. The appellant/second defendant alone contested the suit. The other defendants remained ex parte. 4. The appellant/second defendant contended that he had expended money for the construction of the residential house situated in the plaint schedule property. He further contended that he had provided funds for the marriage of his sisters. On such plea, he sought for reservation and allotment 2025:KER:13532 RFA No.460/2018 ..5.. of the house to his share on excluding it from valuation. 5. The trial court found that the appellant/second defendant failed to adduce any evidence in support of his claim of reservation, and accordingly passed a preliminary decree for partition. 6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side. 7. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the plaint schedule properties belonged to their predecessor, Sri.Kuthupalakkal Sankarankutty. The quantum of shares of the parties, as claimed in the plaint, is also not in dispute. 8. The only contention of the appellant/second defendant is that he had expended money for construction of the residential house situated in the plaint schedule property and for the marriage of his sisters. On the said ground, he claimed reservation and allotment of the house in the plaint schedule property excluding it from valuation. As rightly noticed by the trial court, when the second defendant pleaded a right of reservation on the ground that he had expended money for 2025:KER:13532 RFA No.460/2018 ..6.. construction of the house, the burden was on him to prove the same. Not only that no documentary evidence was adduced by him to substantiate his contentions, but he even failed to mount the witness box. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to support his claim, the trial court was right in having rejected the claim. The judgment and decree of the trial court warrants no interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-