The Kerala High Court dismissed a civil revision petition as it failed to show any jurisdictional error. The lower court correctly recorded a deposit while leaving the right to impugn a sale deed open, a position supported by cited precedents.
The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.
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.CHITAMBARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/16TH KARTHIKA 1934
CRP.No. 467 of 2012 ()
O.P. NO.10/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
RAMAPANIKKAR DIVAKARAPANIKKAR, PAVANA, KUTTIKKATTUKARA, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BINDU MANOJ KUMAR, D/O.DIVAKARA PANICKER, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE, KUTTIKATTUKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA), SRI.R.V.RAHUL.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. BABURAJ, AGED 44,
S/O.MADATHIKKOOTTAM AYYANKUNJU,
2. THANKAMMA, AGED 57,
D/O.MADATHIKKOTTAM AYYANKUNJU,
NADUVILE ODITHETTAYIL, KUTTIKKATTUKARA,
KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK -683 513.
3. VALLI, AGED 47, D/O.MADATHIKKOTTAM AYYANKUNJU, NADUVILE ODITHETTAYIL, KUTTIKKATTUKARA, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK - 683 513.
BY
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
C.R.P No.467 of 2012
= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 7th day of November, 2012
O R D E R
One deceased Thrivikrama Panicker executed a sale deed (Document No.3465/1964,SRO Aluva) in favour of one Mariya whereunder under the assignee was obliged to pay a sum of Rs.400/-(Rupees four hundred only) to one Ramapanikkar Divakarapanikkar. The petitioners in the court below who are the respondents herein are none other than the legal heirs of the said Mariya and the petitioner herein who was the respondent in the court below is Ramapanikkar Divakarapanikkar. The court below has by the order impugned merely recorded the deposit of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred only) which was due to be paid by Mariya in favour of Ramapanikkar Divakarapanikkar leaving open his right to impugn the sale deed . The issue is squarely covered by Vasantha Kumari vs. Sarojini (2008 (1) KLT 451) rendered after construing the provisions of Sections 83 and 100 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court below has not decided the dispute between the parties as regards their rights
C.R.P No.467 of 2012 2
and liabilities under the document and the jurisdiction invoked is merely procedural as held in Vishwanath Prasad Singh vs. Rajendra Prasad (2006 (4) SCC 432) . It is open to Ramapanikkar Divakarapanikkar to impugn the sale deed or to resort to any other remedy known to law and the factum of deposit by the children of Mariya does not impede the right. The impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction as to warrant interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.
V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE
smm
C.R.P No.467 of 2012 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Section 115 CPC when the lower court merely recorded a deposit without deciding substantive rights.
Whether the factum of deposit by legal heirs impedes the right of the creditor to impugn the sale deed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vasantha Kumari vs. SarojiniExplained¶28
Vasantha Kumari vs. Sarojini (2008 (1) KLT 451)
Vishwanath Prasad Singh vs. Rajendra PrasadRelied on¶29
Vishwanath Prasad Singh vs. Rajendra Prasad (2006 (4) SCC 432) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramapanikkar Divakarapanikkar
Bindu Manoj Kumar
Baburaj
Thankamma
Valli
V. Chitambaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
