Dismissed

Ittirarappan v. Krishnan

Kerala HC10 Jun 2008CRP/2403/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition and condonation petitions filed by legal heirs of a deceased respondent. Although a prior court found the deceased entitled to a share, the High Court held the revision lacked merit and found no necessity to implead the heirs after a delay of over six years.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition and petitions seeking condonation and impleadment were dismissed.

Ittirarappan Vs Krishnan — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

CRP.No. 2403 of 1995(I)

¶6

--------------------------------AGAINST THE IA.110/95 IN OS.96/1983 of MUNSIFF I-MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI .

¶7

.................... REVN. PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS 2 & 4 TO 7 IN LOWER COURT.

¶8

----------------------------

¶9

1. ITTIRARAPPAN, S/O. VELAPPAN, RESIDING IN MUTHUTHALA AMSOM, KOZHIKOTTIRI DESOM, PATTAMBI, PALGHAT DISTRICT.

¶10

2. MEENAKSHI, W/O. ITTIRARAPPAN, RESIDING AT DO. DO.

¶11

3. SREEDEVI, D/O. ITTIRARAPPAN, RESIDING AT DO. DO.

¶12

4. SAROJINI, D/O. ITTIRARAPPAN, RESIDING AT DO. DO.

¶13

5. SATHIABHAMA, D/O. ITTIRARAPPAN, RESIDING AT DO. DO.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.) SMT.PRABHA R.MENON

¶15

RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 3 & 8 IN LOWER COURT.

¶16

------------------------

¶17

*1. KRISHNAN, S/O. PUTHIYANAPARAMBATH VELAPPAN, RESIDING AT THENERI AMSOM, VALLOOR DESOM IN OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALGHAT DIST. (DIED)

¶18

*THE FACT THAT R2 IS THE LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED R1 IS RECORDED AS PER ORDER DT. 19.7.06 ON THE MEMO DT. 12.6.06 FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.

¶19

2. JANAKI, W/O. GOPALAN , RESIDING IN MEZHATHUR AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPPALAM PALGHAT

¶20

3. KALI, D/O. ITTIRARAPPAN, RESIDING AT MUTHUTHALA AMSOM, KOZHIKOTTIRI DESOM, PATTAMBI, PALGHAT DISTRIC.

¶21

CRP. NO. 2403/1995

¶22

4. UDAYAKUMARI, D/O. KANNANGATTU KUNHILAKSHMI AMMA, RESIDING AT MUTHUTHALA AMSOM, KOZHIKOTTIRI DESOM, PATTAMBI, PALGHAT DISTRICT.

¶23

BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD - R2 SRI.M.HARISHARMA - R2

¶24

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CRP. NO.2403/1995

¶26

ORDER ON CMP. NO.4128/1995 IN CRP. NO.2403/1995

¶27

DISMISSED

¶28

10.06.2008 SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

/ TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J. ======================= C.R.P No.2403 of 1995 & C.M.Appl.175/05,I.A.492/05, I.A.492/05,I.A.2274/06 ======================= Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008

¶33

Revision is filed challenging the order in I.A.110/1995 whereunder first respondent was

¶34

impleaded as an additional respondent in the final decree proceedings. Subsequent to the filing of the revision, first respondent died and petitions are filed to condone the delay, to set aside the abatement and to implead the legal heirs. The legal heirs appeared and opposed the applications.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondents were heard.

¶36

The revision itself is filed challenging the right of the deceased first respondent to get himself impleaded in the final decree proceedings. He was impleaded on the basis that on the death of Cheeru the mother, he is entitled to a share as one of the legal heirs, along with respondents 2 and 3.

¶37

CRP No.2403/1995 2

¶38

The contention taken in the revision petition is that first respondent had transferred his 1/3^rd right in favour of the mother and therefore he is not entitled to any right to get himself impleaded in the petiiton.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the legal

¶40

heirs of the first respondent pointed out that this question was considered by the first appellate court in A.S.16/1985 when the preliminary decree was challenged and it was specifically found that though first respondent Krishnan had assigned his 1/3^rd right and thereby the mother obtained 2/3^rd shares in the property, on the death of the mother her right devolved on the children including first respondent and he is entitled to 1/4share of 2/3^rd share of Cheeru. In such circumstance, I do not find any merit in the revision itself and therefore I do not find it necessary to implead the legal heirs of first respondent as sought for after condoning the delay of more than 6 years. Petitions and revision petition are dismissed.

¶41

M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge

CRP No.2403/1995

tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶46

--------------------CRL.R.P.NO. /08 --------------------ORDER

¶47

MARCH,2008

Ittirarappan v. Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ittirarappan v. Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

George Vs Peeli

Bushra Sulekha Vs Mubarak Hassan

Shajan Vs Kunjappan

Janaki & Another Vs Sunil & Others

Sunitha Vs Gopalakrishnan Nair & Another

Reena Peter Vs Chandipila Shaji