The Kerala High Court dismissed this regular second appeal. The appellant, a third party, could not challenge an assignment deed executed by a living second respondent regarding allegation of undue influence or lack of consideration, as the second respondent stood by the document.
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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2012/1ST ASHADHA 1934
RSA.No. 735 of 2012 ()
AS.34/2009 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, MANJERI OS.127/2007 OF MUNSIFF - MAGISTRATE COURT, PERINTHALMANNA
APPELLANT : (APPELLANT - PLAINTIFF)
USHA DEVI M.,
WIFE OF SUDHAKARAN M, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, CHETHALLUR (P.O), MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH
RESPONDENTS : (RESPONDENTS - DEFENDANTS)
1. GEETHA DEVI
2. CHOZHI
PERINTHALMANNA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK
BY
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
---------------------------------------R.S.A.No. 735 of 2012
Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2012
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff in O.S. No. 127 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff Magistrate, Perinthalmanna is aggrived by the dismissal of that suit as confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc - II), Manjeri in A.S. No.34 of 2009.
R.S.A.No. Of 735 of 2012
-: 2 :-
Janaki, second respondent divorced Janaki and thereafter, first respondent started residence with the second respondent. It is while so that the second respondent executed the impugned assignment deed No.856 of 1998 in favour of the first respondent assigning his right in the suit properties to the first respondent. Appellant contends that the said document is vitiated by undue influence and is not supported by consideration. Appellant claimed that first respondent has not acquired any right over the suit property as per the said assignment deed.
R.S.A.No. Of 735 of 2012
-: 3 :-
R.S.A.No. Of 735 of 2012
-: 4 :-
There is absolutely no merit in the case pleaded by the appellant and it deserved a dismissal as rightly done by the courts below. I make it clear that I have only adverted the legal right of the appellant to challenge the impugned document.
The second appeal is dismissed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE
Smv
R.S.A.No. Of 735 of 2012
-: 5 :-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appellant who is a third party to an assignment deed executed by a living second respondent has standing to challenge the existence of consideration or claim undue influence.
Whether the High Court should allow the second appeal filed by the appellant against the dismissal of her suit for cancellation of the assignment deed.
Usha Devi M.
Geetha Devi
Chozhi
Thomas P.Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
