Allowed

Mridhula Balan v. Sudheer Kumar

Kerala HC3 Sept 2012RP/654/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed this review petition, recalling the underlying writ judgment. The review petitioner, who was not impleaded in the writ petition, has an interest in the property subject to mutation and charging tax on it. The court held she was a necessary party and her interests would be affected by the mutation decision. The decision is remanded for impleading her.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is allowed and the judgment in the writ petition is recalled. It is posted for filing the application for impleading the review petitioner.

Mridhula Balan Vs Sudheer Kumar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/12TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 654 of 2012 -------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.12442/2010 DATED 08-04-2010)

¶6

REVIEW PETITIONER:

¶7

MRIDHULA BALAN, W/O. BALAN, CHERIKUNNUMAL HOUSE, EDLAYILDAD, PANTHALAYANI, KOYILANDY P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SMT.SEEMA

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

1. SUDHEER KUMAR, PARAKKAL, VAGAYADU DESOM, AVITTANNELLUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

2. TAHASILDAR, QUILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AVITTANNELLUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

RP.No. 654 of 2012

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

ANNEXURE A1:	TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE CAUSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER DATED 9.10.2009.
ANNEXURE A2:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 29.10.2009
ANNEXURE A3:	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S 214/2011 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, QUILANDY DATED 12.7.2011.
ANNEXURE A4:	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2011.
ANNEXURE A5:	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION HAVE FILED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY.
ANNEXURE A6:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD DATED 6.7.2011.
ANNEXURE A7:	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AVITANUALLUR VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 10.3.2006.
ANNEXURE A8:	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2006-2007 IN THE NAME OF REVIEW PETITIONER DATED 10.3.2006.
ANNEXURE A9:	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF REVIEW PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Scl.

 T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶24

R.P.No.654/2012 in W.P.(C). No.12442/2010-E

¶25

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶26

Dated this the 3^rd day of September , 2012

¶27

This review petition is filed by a stranger, who was not arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition. Shortly stated, the case of the review petitioner is the following:

¶28

It is averred in the review petition that the property covered by Ext.P1 assignment deed produced in the writ petition, originally belonged to one Narayani who had executed a registered will on 28/01/1998 bequeathing the property to the review petitioner. She died in 2003 and after that the review petitioner is in possession of the property.

¶29

The writ petitioner had caused a lawyer notice to be issued to the review petitioner as per Annexure A1 which is dated 09/10/2009 and the reply notice issued by the review petitioner has been produced as Annexure-A2. It is also stated that the review petitioner has filed a suit as O.S.No.214/2011 seeking for declaration of possession and title and also to set aside Ext.P1 assignment deed. Annexure A3 is the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.214/11 and Annexure A4 is the copy of the written statement filed by the first respondent and Annexure A5 is the affidavit and application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the review petitioner. It is also the case of the review petitioner that she had availed a loan from

¶30

R.P.No.654/2012

¶31

-:2:-

¶32

Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank Ltd. after mortgaging the property and Annexure A6 letter is produced in support of the above plea. Annexure A7 dated 10/03/2006 is the copy of the possession certificate issued by the concerned Village Officer. Annexure A8 is the copy of the basic tax receipt issued for the year 2006-07 and Annexure A9 is the copy of the Basic Tax Receipt issued in the name of the review petitioner for the year 2009-10.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

¶34

The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that since the property claimed by both the parties is the same, the review petitioner ought to have been arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition especially since the property has already been mutated in her name and she was paying the basic tax.

¶35

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, namely, the contesting respondent herein submits that the remedy of the review petitioner is to approach the appellate authority if she is aggrieved by the mutation effected in favour of him.

¶36

Going by the pleadings in the review petition, it can be seen that the review petitioner was allowed to pay tax for the very same property during the years 2006 and 2009 and Annexure A1 lawyer notice is also prior to the date of the Judgment in the writ petition. In that view of the

¶37

R.P.No.654/2012

¶38

-:3:-

¶39

matter, it can be seen that the review petitioner is not a total stranger but she has got interest in the property. I am not going into the disputed claims of both the parties since the matter is pending before the Civil Court. It can be seen that the review petitioner was a necessary party in the writ petition and any decision on the application for mutation will affect her interest also. The writ petition was disposed of without hearing the review petitioner. In that view of the matter, the review petition is allowed. The Judgment is recalled.

¶40

Post the writ petition on 10/09/2012 for filing impleading application by the review petitioner.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶43

ms

Mridhula Balan v. Sudheer Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mridhula Balan v. Sudheer Kumar

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

Sumangala Devi Vs Sivasankar IAS

Biju.G Vs State of Kerala

K.Manoharan Vs State of Kerala

V.P.Sajithadevi Vs Shri.Muhammed Sagir

Dr.N.S.Ajayaghosh Vs v.P.Joy

Penta Circle Informatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs a.Alexander