Dismissed

Devi v. Kunhiraman

Kerala HC18 Oct 2012CRP/303/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order of the Munsiff Court. The lower court had recorded a belated payment of Rs. 1000/- under a sale deed and discharged liability, ruling the time limit was directory. The High Court held such an order cannot be annulled under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no costs as it fails.

Devi Vs Kunhiraman — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/26TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 303 of 2012 () ----------------------

¶6

OP.4/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY dated 29.7.2011.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

DEVI, AGED 60 YEARS D/O RAMUNNI, NO JOB, KAPRATH P.O. PANNIYANNOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR. BY ADVS.SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SRI.RAJESH V.NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:

¶10

KUNHIRAMAN,, AGED 80 YEARS S/O RAMUNNI, NO JOB, KOLIPRATH THAZHEKUNIYIL PO. CHOKLI, TALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SASI

¶11

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶13

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶14

C.R.P No.303 of 2012

¶15

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2012

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Mother (Kalyani) executed a sale deed (Document No.563/1997) in favour of her two sons by name Kunhiraman and Kunhikannan. . The document itself provides for the payment of Rs.500/- each to her daughters by name Nani and Devi by the assignee sons. The sons later partitioned the property amongst themselves by Document No.1316/96 . The liability to pay the total sum of Rs.1000/- was shouldered by one of the sons who is the respondent herein.

¶18

The respondent filed O.P NO.4/2010 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Thalassery to record the payment in order to discharge the liability under the sale deed. The respondent contended that his sister by name Nani received the sum of Rs.500/- whereas the petitioner (Devi) refused to accept her share of money. The court below has by the order impugned recorded the payment and given a clean chit as regards the discharge. The amount has been paid belatedly and the specification to pay the amount within the time is only directory and not mandatory.

¶19

C.R.P No.303 of 2012 2

¶20

The order of the court below rendered in the realm of Section100 of the Transfer of the Property Act cannot be annulled in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. A reference in this connection to the decision in Vasanthakumari and others vs. Sarojini and others (2008 (1) KLT 451) is apposite. Nothing said in this judgment will disable the petitioner to challenge the validity of either the sale deed or the partition deed referred to above appropriately in a court of law.

¶21

The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.

¶22

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶23

smm

Devi v. Kunhiraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi v. Kunhiraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Shenoy Vs Ramachandra Shenoy

Kaniparambil Joseph Vs Konoth Pathayapurayil Bhaskaran Nambiar

T.M.Rajan Vs K.K.Sadasivan

Sibichan Sebastian Vs Kochu Thressia

Leela Amma @Leela Vs Sarada Gopalakrishnan

M.Shinoj Vs E.N.Sasi