Dismissed

Janardhanan v. P.K.Ramachandran and 3 Others

Kerala HC25 Oct 2011RP/738/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking survey of property share. The Court recalled a previous order and held that the petitioner must apply for final decree or execution under the compromise decree instead, before the appropriate civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners directed to approach appropriate civil court for final decree or execution.

Janardhanan Vs P.K.Ramachandran and 3 Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 738 of 2011(D) ------------------------------[THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.20639/2011 DATED 28/07/2011] ....................

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶7

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

¶8

JANARDHANAN,S/O.KITTU, POOVATHINKAL HOUSE, THRIKKATHAYA DESOM, ELANADU VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK,ELANADU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 586.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. P.K.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.KITTU, POOVATHINKAL HOUSE, THRIKKATHAYA DESOM, ELANAD VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, P.O.ELANAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680 586.

¶13

2. THE TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK,VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 582.

¶14

3. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK,VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-PIN-680 582.

¶15

4. TALUK SURVEYOR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 582.

¶16

R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED SHAH.

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R.P.NO.738/2011:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶21

ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE I.A. 3746/2011 IN O.S. NO.1098/2004 OF THE SUB COURT, TRISSUR DTD. 01/04/2011.

¶22

ANNEXURE.B: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 6771/2010 IN O.S. NO. 683/2010 OF THE PRL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR DTD. 24/09/2010.

¶23

ANNEXURE.C: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM C.M.A. NO.147/2010 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, TRISSUR.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶29

¶30

¶31

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2011

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

This review petition has been filed by the first respondent in W.P.(C) No.20639/2011. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, seeking the following

¶34

prayer:-

¶35

“Issue a writ of mandamus

¶36

commanding respondents 2 to 4 to measure and fix the boundary of the property of the petitioner, having an extent of 1.67 acres comprised in Survey No.1214/1 of Elanadu village, Thalappily Taluk, Thrissur district as per Exts.P3 and P5 application within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶37

The basis of such a prayer was that, by Ext.P1,

¶38

the dispute in O.S.No.1098/2004 on the file of the Sub

¶39

RP No.738/2011

¶40

: 2 :

¶41

Court, Thrissur was compromised between the parties and that, on the said compromise, Ext.P2 decree was passed, entitling the writ petitioner to property having an extent of 1 acre and 67 cents, out of 3 acres and 34 cents. Based on the above, he made an application for survey and demarcation of his share of the property and complaining of inaction of the application, the writ petition was filed.

¶42

Taking note of the aforesaid facts, by judgment dated 28.07.2011, this Court disposed of the writ petition, directing that needful shall be done by the official respondents.

¶43

The first respondent in the writ petition has filed this review petition mainly complaining that several obligations under the compromise decree have not been discharged by the writ petitioner and that, if survey of one share of the property alone is carried out, prejudice will be caused to the other sharers and that the trial Court itself has held in Annexure-B order that the remedy of the writ petitioner was to

¶44

RP No.738/2011 : 3 :

¶45

apply for a final decree.

¶46

Having heard the counsel appearing for the review petitioner and also the writ petitioner, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the review petitioner. Obviously, the right claimed by the writ petitioner is based on Ext.P2 decree. The Court directed division of property into three shares. If the property is to be divided on that basis, the remedy available to the writ petitioner is to apply for final decree or if Ext.P2 is a final decree according to him, then, to apply for its execution. Such a statutory remedy available could not have been bypassed by making an application for survey and demarcation.

¶47

Therefore, I am satisfied that the judgment is initiated on the errors apparent on the records and, therefore, the judgment dated 28.07.2011 disposing the writ petition is reviewed and is recalled, for the aforesaid reasons.

¶48

Leaving it open to the writ petitioner to seek remedy before the appropriate civil court, the writ petition is

RP No.738/2011

: 4 :

disposed of.

Review petition is allowed as above.

¶53

Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶54

aks/25/10

¶55

// True Copy //

¶56

P.A. To Judge

Janardhanan v. P.K.Ramachandran and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardhanan v. P.K.Ramachandran and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poyya Grama Panchayat Vs Vinoy T.S

U.a.Rafeeque Vs Additional District Magistrate

Muthamma Vs Union of India

Shijimol V.K Vs Vidhya

P.K.Ramachandran Vs Janardanan

Thankam B.Menon Vs State of Kerala