Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Sri.R.S.Kalkura, submits that as is ineluctable RFA.No.209 OF 2006(C) from the afore objections, the appellant was solely concerned about the ovelty amounts payable by him, because the thrust of his objections are that schedule A and B were valued high, while schedule C to M were valued lower; thus he being mulcted with a large ovelty of nearly Rs.10 lakhs to be paid to the plaintiffs and to the 2 nd defendant. Sri.R.S.Kalkura, then contented that even if these objections had been taken note of by the Trial Court, the disputations would have been only with respect to the ovelty amounts and nothing else; and therefore, that the distribution of the assets, as now settled by the learned Commissioner and accepted by the Trial Court, may not be, in any manner, interfered by this Court. He thus prays that this appeal be dismissed.

24. However, during hearing, Sri.R.S.Kalkura, submitted RFA.No.209 OF 2006(C) that, though his clients are entitled to the ovelty they are willing to give up such claim and also to honour the owelty now being claimed by the 2nd defendant, so that the burden of paying the same can be removed from the shoulder of the appellant, purely to buy peace and to obtain a quietus to the whole issue. He says that his client is making this suggestion only because they want to end this litigation at least now, since most of them are sick, infirm and even on death bed and that they do not want to continue to litigate solely on the aspect of ovelty.

25. Sri.Radhakrishnan, to the afore suggestion of Sri.R.S.Kalkura, responded by saying that his client will not give up their claim for ovelty from the appellant but that if the plaintiffs are willing to pay the same within a time frame, he will not stand in the way since such payment can also be treated as a discharge in favour of the appellant as per the final decree and judgment.

26. Axiomatically, when the appellant is rid of the burden of paying ovelty to the plaintiffs and to the 2 nd defendant, the objections raised by him before the Trial Court will virtually be RFA.No.209 OF 2006(C) construed as having been accepted and he should have no further grievance against the impugned judgment and decree.

28. That said, since Sri.R.S.Kalkura now submits that his clients are willing to take over the entire burden of ovelty , I do not see any reason why I must entertain this appeal further since, as I have already indicated above, by doing so, the effect is that the appellant effectively succeeds in this appeal, based on his objections raised before the Trial Court.

29. In the conspectus of the above, I deem this appeal deserving to be allowed to the limited extent of declaring that RFA.No.209 OF 2006(C) the plaintiffs will not be entitled to claim any ovelty from the appellant; and that the burden of the ovelty amount of Rs.4,99,131.22/-, payable to the 2 nd defendant, will be shifted to the plaintiffs, which they will pay within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.