Preliminary decree passed does not provide for any allotment of 1/6 share claimed by the petitioner. Without amending the said preliminary decree parties cannot intervene in the final decree proceedings, where what is intended is only to give actual allotment of shares as contemplated in the preliminary decree. [Sosamma Yohannan and others vs Elias. CRP. 2745 OF 1990. Dated 24-11-2000. M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)]
Suit for partition not pressed by the plaintiff - Defendants by invoking Order XXIII Rule 1-A of the CPC can continue the same. [ Ramakrishna vs. Thanka. 2000(3) KLT 886. M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)]
Sec. 2 (2) - Suit for partition - Preliminary decree passed - IA to pass final decree - Commissioner found not convenient to divide the property metes and bounds - Court below directed to sell the property in auction among sellers - Petitioner applied for certified copy of the order passed for selling as if it is a decree - application rejected - Subsequent petition for direction to draft a decree was dismissed - Dismissal is a manifest error. Subsequent order will amount to passing of a decree [K.K.Ravindran vs K.K.Janardhanan. 2001 (2) KLT 644 = 2001 (2) KLJ 53. Dated 19th June, 2001. K.A.Mohammed Shafi (J)]
Kerala Civil Rules of Practice - Rule 234 (3) -Partition suit - Building which cannot be sold is auctioned among bidders - Highest bidder need deposit only the balance amount and ask the execution of sale deed in respect of that property alone . [Santosh Kumar vs. Indira Mohandas. 2001 (3) KLT 389 = 2001 (2) KLJ 512. K.A.Mohammed Shafi (J)]
Partition Act, 1893 - Sec. 2 - Partition among sharers - Property indivisible - Court may resort to any feasible method just and equitable - Property is to be valued and the person residing is allowed to purchase the property. [ K.N.Krishnan vs K.N.Narayanan. 2002 (1) KLJ 992. Dated 18th December, 2001. A.Lekshmikutty (J)]