RSA NO. 174 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:25621 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 RSA NO. 174 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.11.2021 IN AS NO. 40 OF 2015 OF SUB COURT, TIRUR ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2015 IN OS NO.174 OF 2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI APPELLANT/APPELLANT NO.1 IN A.S./DEFENDANT NO.1 IN O.S.: KUNHAN AGED 74 YEARS S/O. PALLATTU CHANDUNNI, A.R.NAGAR AMSOM, MAMBURAM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676305 BY ADVS. P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 13 IN A.S./PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT NOS.3 TO 14 IN O.S.(DEFENDANT NO.2 DIED): 1 PALLATTU THALASSEERAN, 60 YEARS, S/O. PALLATTU UNNICHANDAN, A.R.NAGAR AMSOM, MAMBURAM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676305 2 SHANMUGHAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O. PALLATTU UNNICHANDAN, A.R.NAGAR AMSOM, PUKAYOOR DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676305 RSA NO. 174 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:25621 3 YESODHA AGED 70 YEARS W/O. VADAKKEPURAKKAL KUMARAN, D/O. PALLATTU UNNICHANDAN, A.R.NAGAR AMSOM, PUKAYOOR DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676305 4 LEELA AGED 69 YEARS W/O. KUNNEKATT PARAMBIL SREEDHARAN, D/O. PALLATTU UNNICHANDAN, A.R.NAGAR AMSOM, PUKAYOOR DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676305 5 SARADHA AGED 65 YEARS D/O. PALLATTU UNNICHANDAN, A.R.NAGAR AMSOM, PUKAYOOR DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676305 6 THANKA AGED 60 YEARS D/O. PALLATTU UNNICHANDAN, A.R.NAGAR AMSOM, PUKAYOOR DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676305 7 LAKSHMI AGED 74 YEARS W/O. KARAPPAN, KOLLERI HOUSE, MANNUR AMSOM-DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673328 8 VELAYUDHAN AGED 61 YEARS KIZHAKKETHODI, TENHIPALAM AMSOM-DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673636 9 KRISHNANKUTTY AGED 59 YEARS AMBALAKATH HOUSE, TENHIPALAM AMSOM-DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673636 10 KARTHIKA AGED 56 YEARS W/O. SUKUMARAN, MELAYIL HOUSE, VALLIKUNNU AMSOM-DESOM, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673314 11 LEELA, AGED 51 YEARS W/O. PARAMESWARAN, SUNIL NIVAS, VALIYAPARAMBU, TENHIPALAM AMSOM-DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673636 RSA NO. 174 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:25621 12 JANU AGED 49 YEARS W/O. GOPALAN, AMBULUMKANDI, PO. PARAMBIL PEEDEIKA, MALALPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676317 13 VELAYUDHAN (DIED) AGED 71 YEARS H/O. PALLATTU KALYANI, CHITTUMANNIL HOUSE, MUTHANGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676517 [RESPONDENTS NOS.14 TO 17 ARE RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 13TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 06.03.2025 ON MEMO DATED 05.03.2025 IN RSA 174/2025 (FILING NO.640/2024)] 14 UNNULI AGED 51 YEARS D/O. PALLATTU KALYANI, CHITTU MANNIL HOUSE, MUTHAGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676517 15 KARTHIYANI AGED 49 YEARS D/O. PALLATTU KALYANI, CHITTU MANNIL HOUSE, MUTHAGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676517 16 VILASINI AGED 46 YEARS D/O. PALLATTU KALYANI, CHITTU MANNIL HOUSE, MUTHAGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676517 17 SUKUMARI AGED 42 YEARS D/O. PALLATTU KALYANI, CHITTU MANNIL HOUSE, MUTHAGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676517 18 THANKAMANI AGED 45 YEARS D/O. KIZHAKKEPURAKKAL MUKUNDAN, W/O. PALAMUTTATH DASAN, VELIMUKKU AMSOM-DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, PIN - 673314 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RSA NO. 174 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:25621 JUDGMENT 1. The first defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant. Plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition of plaint B schedule property having an extent of 40 cents on the claim that it is the co-ownership property of the plaintiffs and the defendants originally belonged to their predecessor Unnichandan. 2. As per the plaint allegations, the original predecessor of the plaintiffs and the defendants is one Unnichandan who had two sons- Thalaseeran and Mavunni. Another Unnichandan is the son of Thalaseeran. Chanthunni is the son of Mavunni. The plaintiffs are the children of Junior Unnichandan. The defendants are the children of Chanthunni. Plaint B schedule property is item No.1 in Ext.A1 Partition Deed of the year 1911, in which the said property was allotted to the Senior Unnichandan. The plaintiffs sought for partition of the property by allotting ½ share to the plaintiffs. 3. The defendants opposed the suit prayers, contending that Senior Unnichandan had only one son, Mavunni, and no son by the name Thalaseeran. The plaintiffs are not the descendants of Senior RSA NO. 174 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:25621 Unnichandan, and hence, they are not entitled to a share in the property belonging to Senior Unnichandan. 4. The Trial Court decreed the suit ordering partition of the plaint schedule property, finding that Thalaseeran is the son of Senior Unnichandan. 5. The 2nd defendant died. The defendants 1 and 3 to 14 filed appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 6. This Appeal is filed by the 1st defendant alone challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 7. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial Court relied on Exts.A2 and A3 to find that the Thalaseeran is the son of Senior Unnichandan. In Ext.A2, the plural word 'fathers' is used while referring to the father of the parties. As the singular word is not used, Ext.A2 would prove that the fathers of the two parties therein are different. Hence, it could not be assumed that, as per Ext.A2, the father of Thalasseeran and Mavunni is one and the same person. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court RSA NO. 174 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:25621 misconstrued and misunderstood the recitals in Exts.A2 and A3 is the contention. The learned counsel further contended that the entire burden to prove the paternity of Thalaseeran, who was the great-grandfather of the plaintiffs, is fixed on the defendants by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The learned counsel concluded by submitting that the Appeal is liable to be admitted as substantial questions of law relating to the interpretation of Ext.A2 document is involved in the matter. 9. I have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. It is seen from the impugned judgments and decree that the Trial Court found that Senior Unnichandan is the father of Thalaseeran, not merely relying on Exts.A2 and A3. Ext.A2 is a Partition Deed executed by Chanthunni, son of Mavunni and one Unnichandan, son of Thalaseeran. The said document would indicate that the two parties therein have different fathers. Names of the fathers of the parties are specifically stated. Hence, the reference of the plural word ‘fathers’ in the subsequent part of the document is in conformity with the fact that the fathers of both the parties therein are different. In the said document Thalaseeran is not a party. As RSA NO. 174 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:25621 rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, Exts.A2 and A3 do not in anyway indicate the fact that Thalaseeran is the son of Unnichandan. But the fact is that Exts.A2 and A3 deal with the properties that originated from the common ancestor Chanthunni, son of Mavunni, and Unnichandan, son of Thalaseeran. The partition in Ext.A2 proves that both these persons are having rights over the property originated from a common ancestor. The defendants contended in their Written Statement that Thalaseeran also belonged to their family. When Exts.A2 and A3 were produced, they changed their stand and said that Thalaseeran was the friend of their father, Chanthunni. It would indicate that they are hiding the true facts before the court. Even though they contended that Thalaseeran belongs to their family and Senior Unnichandan is not his father, they do not reveal as to who was the father of Thalaseeran. When Exts.A2 & A3 coupled with the pleadings in the written statement and subsequent change of stand of the defendants are taken into consideration, the only probability that could be arrived at is that Thalaseeran is the son of Senior Unnichandan. In that regard, the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, has considered the evidence before it and arrived RSA NO. 174 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:25621 at a conclusion that Thalaseeran is the son of Senior Unnichandan. No burden was fixed on the defendants to prove that Thalaseeran was not the son of Senior Unnichandan. The Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, arrived at the right conclusion, and there is nothing to be interfered with in this Appeal. No substantial question of law is involved. Hence, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE Shg/XX