The High Court of Kerala dismissed the second appeal in limine. The appellant, who sued to cancel a prior settlement deed, challenged the lower courts' finding that the deed was acted upon. The High Court held no substantial question of law arose as the prior decision was followed.
Second appeal dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930
RSA.No. 423 of 2005()
--------------------AS.50/2003 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE OS.1048/1997 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II
APPELLANT-APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF:
EDAMANA ILLATH SANKARAN EMBRANTHIRI, VELIPRAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS:
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = R.S.A.No.423 of 2005
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.1048 of 1997 on the file of the Munsiff's Court-IIA, Kozhikode is the appellant in this second appeal. The said suit was one for declaration that the 1st defendant has not obtained any right or possession over the plaint A Schedule Property admeasuring 35½ cents under Ext.A1 settlement deed dated 22.3.85 and for recovery of possession of the said property.
The 1st defendant is the wife of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant is one of their sons. The plaintiff was the owner of the plaint C Schedule property consisting of two items. Item No.1 of the plaint C Schedule property has a total extent of 85 cents and Item No.2 of the C Schedule property has a total extent of 80 cents. The plaint B Schedule property consists of portions of item No.1 of the plaint C Schedule property and was settled by
R.S.A.No.423 of 2005
2
the plaintiff in favour of two of his sons including the 2nd defendant. The plaint A Schedule Property admeasuring 35½ cents was settled by him in favour of his wife, the 1st defendant as per Ext.A1 settlement deed dated 23.2.85. Plaint A Schedule property and Plaint B Schedule Property would together constitute Item No.1 of the plaint C Schedule property. After the plaintiff and his wife fell apart, the plaintiff had, after 6 years of executing Ext.A1 settlement deed, executed Ext.A2 cancellation deed dated 25.6.91 purporting to cancel Ext.A1 settlement deed. Thereafter he filed the present suit in the year 1993 seeking the above releifs.
3
R.S.A.No.423 of 2005
cancellation deed. The conclusion reached by the courts below are in accordance with the decision of this Court in Gopalakrishnan v.Kamalamma (2006(4) KLT 377).
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The questions of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal do not arise for consideration in this second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises regarding the validity of a cancellation deed after a settlement deed was acted upon and the donee became the absolute owner.
Whether the appellants can raise any questions of law in this second appeal given the facts below.
Whether the conclusions of courts below aligning with Gopalakrishnan v.Kamalamma require further appellate scrutiny.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gopalakrishnan v.KamalammaRelied on¶27
Gopalakrishnan v.Kamalamma (2006(4) KLT 377)
EDAMANA ILLATH SANKARAN EMBRANTHIRI
E.S. SANTHADEVI
EDAMANA ILLATH MADUSOODANAN
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
