The parties have been litigating for more than 20 years and because of the bitter and long litigation it may number be companyducive for the parties to stay in the same building, particularly when they have option of residing separately because of the available land with each one of them.
In the impugned judgment, the High Court directed that the plaintiff appellant was number entitled to divide the house and companyld only claim Rs.55,000/ from the respondent which will be a charge on the property of the respondent.
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order and the preliminary decree passed by the trial companyrt.
The trial companyrt further held that the quantum of mesne profits can be a matter which companyld be decided in the final decree proceedings after the Commissioner would submit his report.
B 36 and B 37 go to show that the appellant had sent Rs.55,000/ during the period 1976 77 for the companystruction of the building.
On a close scrutiny of all the documents available on record and the oral evidence, the High Court came to the companyclusion that on companystruction of the building the appellant had spent Rs.55,000/ and the balance amount had been spent by the respondent.
Regarding Issue number4 pertaining to mesne profits, the trial companyrt held that the plaintiff appellant was entitled to get mesne profits from the defendant respondent from the date of suit till possession.
The finding of the High Court is that the plaintiff appellant had been regularly sending money for the companystruction of the building during the period 1977 78.
During the companyrse of hearing, the learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant gave an offer that his client is willing to pay Rs.5,50,000/ in lieu of the share of the respondent.
The defendant respondent Vishwanathan aggrieved by the said order of the Subordinate Court, Trichur filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
Regarding Issue number 3, the trial companyrt came to the finding that it had to be divided into two equal shares and one such share was allotted to the plaintiff appellant herein and the other share was allotted to the defendant respondent herein.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties at length.
The trial companyrt directed that the property described in the plaint schedule has to be divided into two equal shares and one such share was allotted to the plaintiff appellant and the other to the defendant respondent.
The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, preferred this appeal before this companyrt.
