Allowed

Beema Beevi v. Yahya Beegumand

Kerala HC2 Nov 2012OP(C)/3400/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original petition regarding partition, this High Court set aside the subordinate judge's order refusing to summon a registered Will for inspection. The court held that under Civil Procedure Rules, the document should be called for evidence, a copy taken for records, and returned to the registrar, allowing the petitioner's interim application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order refusing permission to summon the registered Will was set aside; I.A. No. 6008/2010 allowed.

Beema Beevi Vs Yahya Beegumand — Partition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/11TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 3400 of 2012 (O)

¶6

OS.344/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANT:-:

¶8

BEEMA BEEVI, AGED 71 YEARS TC.41/2152, NOORUL SALAM MANZIL, KAIIPPANKULAM MANNACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶10

SRI.M.S.KALESH

¶11

SMT.R.BINDU SMT.A.V.PRIYA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS 2 TO 4 AND COUNTER PETITIONERS//DEFENDANTS 4 TO 6 AND PLAINTIFFS:-:

¶13

YAHIYA BEEGUM,

¶14

TC.41/2152, NOORUL SALAM MANZIL, KAIIPPANKULAM MANNACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.

¶15

NOORJAHAN,

¶16

GHSLRA NO.12, TC.41/2152, NOORUL SALAM MANZIL

¶17

KAIIPPANKULAM, MANNACAUD P.O.

¶18

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.

¶19

AYISHA RESOOJA,

¶20

FOUZY MANZIL, BP 3/570, BALARAMAPURAM - 695 501.

¶21

ZULFIKKARALI,

¶22

ESA MANZIL, TC.43/392(2), KAMALESWARAM

¶23

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.

¶24

FAZILUL HAQ,

¶25

NOORUL SALAM MANZIL, TC.41/2152 KAIIPPANKULAM - 695 009.

¶26

R2 TO 5 BY ADV. SRI.V.S.AFSAL KHAN

¶27

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

APPENDIX IN O.P.(C) No.3400 of 2012

¶29

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶30

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.344 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶31

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1, 4, 5 AND 6 IN O.S.344 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶32

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE SECOND DEFENDANT IN O.S.344 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JDUGE'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶33

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF I.A.6008 OF 2010 IN O.S.344 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶34

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS SCHEDULE SUBMITTED BUY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.344 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶35

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2012 IN I.A.6008 OF 2010 IN O.S.344 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶38

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶39

O.P.(C) No. 3400 of 2012 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2012

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

The suit is one for partition of the property left behind by the husband of the first defendant. The first defendant relied on a registered Will (Document No.137/1994, SRO, Chalai) executed by her husband. The original Will has already been produced by the first defendant in court.

¶42

The plaintiffs contended that the husband of the first defendant was totally bed-ridden at the material time. The plaintiffs are none other than the two sons of the first defendant. The contention in other words is that their father had not gone to the office of the Sub Registrar to execute the Will. Therefore an application was filed to summon the copy of the Will retained in the office of the Sub Registrar.

¶43

The court below has by the order impugned refused to call for the copy of the Will as sought. The only reason stated is the existence of a circular alleged to have been issued by this Court. The details or the contents of the circular are however not disclosed in the order impugned. The Civil Rules of Practice

¶44

O.P.(C) No.3400 of 2012

¶45

¶46

[Rule 120(4)] enables the document to be so summoned for the purpose of evidence.

¶47

It is open to the court to take a colour photostat copy of the Will and retain it with the records. The copy of the Will can be send back to the office of the Sub Registrar after the evidence is recorded. The order of the court below refusing permission to so summon the document cannot be sustained. The impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.6008/2010 in O.S.No.344/2007 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge of Thiruvananthapuram is allowed.

¶48

The original petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶50

nj.

Beema Beevi v. Yahya Beegumand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beema Beevi v. Yahya Beegumand

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

Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Mills Vs State of Kerala

Ambujakshi Vs State of Kerala & Others

Ram Manoj Vs M/S. Shriram Transport Co. Ltd.

Santhoshji Vs Johnson

T.D.Vittal Vs Sreekar Kammath

A. Chandrasekharan Vs M/S. Sakthi Finance Ltd.