Allowed

Varkey Elias & Another v. P.T.Thomas & Others

Kerala HC19 Jan 2010RP/894/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a review petition challenging a previous dismissal of an appeal in limine. The judgment was recalled due to the discovery of a fabricated document (Ext.A1) that caused patent errors of law in the lower court's findings. The matter was remanded for a fair hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 2/7/2009 is recalled granting a fair hearing on merits.

Varkey Elias & Another Vs P.T.Thomas & Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931

¶5

RP.No. 894 of 2009()

¶6

-------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 2/7/2009 IN RSA.606/2009

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS

¶8

¶9

VARKEY ELIAS AGED 55 , S/O. VARKEY, HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT PUTHAYATHU HOUSE, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, ADIMALI KARA, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DIST.

¶10

VARKEY VARGHESE, AGED 52, S/O. VARKEY HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT PUTHAYATHU HOUSE, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, ADIMALI KARA, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT AND NOW RESIDING AT PUTHAYATHU HOUSE, THACHATTUKARA P.O., MUTTAOM,ALUVA -6.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶13

¶14

P.T. THOMAS & S/O. THOMAS AGED 44 YEARS, KANJIRATHIKAL HOUSE, ADIMALI KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DIVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶15

P.T. SEBASTIAN, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 49 A YEARS,KANJIRATHIKAL HOUSE, ADIMALI KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DIVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶16

K.T. CHACKO, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 44 YEARS KANJIRATHIKAL HOUSE, ADIMALI KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DIVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶17

JOSEPH, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 43 YEARS, KANJIRATHIKAL HOUSE, ADIMALI KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DIVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶18

-2-

¶19

R.P.NO.894/2009

¶20

MATHEW THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 39 YEARS, KANJIRATHIKAL HOUSE, ADIMALI KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DIVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶21

MATHEW JOHN, S/O. JOHN, AGED 46 YEARS, EDAPPARA ADIMALI KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK.

¶22

ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM FOR R 1 TO R 5

¶23

SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH R1 TO R5

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶26

R.P.NO.894 of 2009 in R.S.A.NO.606 OF 2009

¶27

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This Court by judgment dated 2/7/2009 dismissed the

¶30

appeal in limine. Apart from raising the grounds touching the merits of the case, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioners brought to my attention para 18 of the judgment in O.S.No.241/1999, wherein the court below heavily relied on Ext.A1, which is the relevant pages of the road register and Ext.X1 report of the Village Officer. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the judgment sought to be reviewed discloses patent errors of law apparent on the face of record. According to him, placing reliance heavily on Ext.A1 extract of road register for accepting the case set up by the plaintiffs has caused injustice to the review petitioners, that Ext.A1 is subsequently detected to be a fabricated document and that the

¶31

-2-

¶32

R.P.No.894/09

¶33

fact finding courts wrongly relied on the said document to arrive at the question as to whether the disputed road is a public road or not. The learned counsel also pointed out that in view of the clear disclosures to the courts below by the Investigating Officers and in view of the criminal actions now pending in respect of such forgery and criminal fabrication, the matter requires re-consideration on merits. According to him, this is a fit case for remand to the trial court for considering the issues afresh.

¶34

In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2686/09 it

¶35

is pointed out that the conduct of the respondents in fabricating the document and placing reliance on such document by the courts below in arriving at the findings in the judgments passed by the fact finding courts has resulted in manifest injustice and therefore the decree passed by the court below mainly on the basis of Ext.A1 road register is likely to be reversed in second appeal. The learned counsel further pointed out that the vigilance

¶36

-3-

¶37

R.P.No.894/09

¶38

officers had, pursuant to the order of this Court and the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, investigated the fabrication of the said document and confirmed the alleged fabrication and had forwarded the recommendations to the learned Munsiff, Devikulam and the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adimali for initiation of actions including prosecution under law. These facts are stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.2686/09. The review petitioner also produced certified copies of the police report dated 8/7/09, FIR in Crime No.548/08 of Adimali Police Station, the order dated 13/7/09 of the Judicial First Class magistrate, Adimali granting bail to the said persons and the certified copy of the report dated 23/3/09 submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police,Adimali to the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam.

¶39

Considering all these materials and considering the

¶40

fact that the fact finding courts had given much emphasis and reliance on Ext.A1 document, I find that the second appeal

¶41

-4-

¶42

R.P.No.894/09

¶43

requires a fair hearing. In the circumstances stated above and for the intervening developments, I am of the view that the dismissal

¶44

of the appeal in limine causes substantial injury and injustice to the review petitioners.

¶45

In the result, the review petition is allowed. The judgment dated 2/7/2009 rendered by this Court in the second appeal is recalled.

¶46

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv.

¶47

-5-

¶48

R.P.No.894/09

Varkey Elias & Another v. P.T.Thomas & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varkey Elias & Another v. P.T.Thomas & Others

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

Rev.Fr.Joseph Veliyathil Vs Appu

Domkage Biddaruge Hassan Vs Kudege Bavage Kaddha

V.K. Gopalan Vs Subramanian and Others

Kutty Mannadasiar Vs A.A Swaminathan

Mani Vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju

M.R.Unnikrishnan Vs K.T.Varghese