Allowed

Annakkutty v. Pathrose

Kerala HC30 Jan 2008CRP/2433/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a civil revision petition is not maintainable regarding a suit for possession based on previous possession, as it does not fall under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Relief was granted by allowing the petitioner to file an appeal with the limitation period adjusted to exclude the revision period.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed to allow the petitioner to file an appeal, with the limitation period for the appeal excluding the time the revision was pending.

Annakkutty Vs Pathrose — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929

¶4

CRP.No. 2433 of 2001(A)

¶5

----------------------AGAINST ORDER DATED 25/01/2001 IN OS.207/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT,THODUPUZHA

¶6

REVN. PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

ANNAKKUTTY AUGUSTHY, W/O.RAGHU, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOOTAMPARAYIL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

PATHROSE, S/O.AUGUSTHY, RESIDING AT KOOTAMPARAYIL HOUSE, VETTOOR KARA, NELLADU.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶13

THULASI, S/O. NEELAKANDAN, RESIDING AT POOVATHUNKAL HOUSE, VANNAPURAM KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA.

¶14

ALIKUTTY, W/O. THULASI, RESIDING AT –DO-- --DO--

¶15

BENNY, S/O.PATHROSE, RESIDING AT KOOTTAMPARAYIL HOUSE, VETTOOR KARA, NELLADU.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶16

BABY, S/O.PATHROSE, RESIDING AT –DO-- --DO--

¶17

BABU, S/O.PATHROSE, RESIDING AT –DO-- --DO--

¶18

MARY, W/O.PATHROSE, RESIDING AT –DO-- --DO--

¶19

THRESSIAMMA, D/O.AUGUSTHY, RESIDING AT –DO-- --DO--

¶20

*9. CHACKO, S/O.AUGUSTHY, RESIDING AT –DO-- --DO--

¶21

(*THE NINTH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 04/01/2008 IN I.A.3216/07)

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶23

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON 30/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶25

C.R.P. No. 2433 of 2001

¶26

Dated, this the 30^th day of January, 2008

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.207/97 on the file of the Court of Munsiff of Thodupuzha. The suit was filed for a declaration of the plaintiff's possessory title over the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession. There is also a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction. Court fee was paid under Sections 25(a) and 27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. There is no indication that the suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Trial Court dismissed the suit.

¶29

In paragraph 6 of the judgment, it is stated that the normal rule is that if a suit is brought within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on the strength of previous possession, title need not be alleged and proved. The said discussion occurs while dealing with issue No.2 as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and injunction. Probably, this sentence in paragraph 6 of the judgment might have misled the revision petitioner in not preferring appeal against the judgment and decree.

¶30

C.R.P.2433/2001

¶31

-2-

¶32

On going through the plaint, a copy of which was made available to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the suit is not one under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It is a suit for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and not on title coming within the purview of Article 64 of the Limitation Act. An appeal lies against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Therefore, the civil revision petition is not maintainable.

¶33

It is clear that the revision petitioner was prosecuting the revision before this Court with due diligence. It is most likely that the petitioner was misled by the observation in paragraph 6 of the judgment with reference to Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The civil revision petition was filed on 06/07/2001. The period during which the revision was pending is liable to be excluded in computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal, by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act. If the revision petitioner files appeal before the appropriate court, that court shall exclude the period during which the civil revision petition was pending before this Court, for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Registry shall forthwith return the certified copy of the judgment and decree to the revision petitioner.

¶34

(K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE)

¶35

Annakkutty v. Pathrose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annakkutty v. Pathrose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhavan Nair Vs Alex Joseph

Puthiyara Ummacha Vs State

Moideenkutty Vs Veeran

P.a.Mohammed Hazeem Vs Stateof Kerala

Edathil Jayarajan Vs K.P.Sivasankaran

Kurian K.Kuriakose Vs Usha Cherian and Others