Dismissed

The State of Kerala v. Padmini

Kerala HC25 Jul 2013WA/1052/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal challenging the interpretation of 'family' under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The court held that legal heirs of a deceased son seeking to partition ancestral property with his sister constitute a 'family' eligible for concessional stamp duty, relying on a prior Division Bench decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal No.1052 of 2013 is dismissed; no costs awarded.

The State of Kerala Vs Padmini — Partition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2013/3RD SRAVANA, 1935

¶6

W.A.No.1052 of 2013

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No.2647/2013, DATED 20-05-2013, OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶8

APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE WRIT PETITION:-

¶9

THE SUB REGISTRAR,

¶10

OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, PUTHECRUZ,

¶11

PUTHENCRUZ P.O., PIN - 682 308, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,

¶13

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM,

¶14

RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, PIN - 682 018.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS.

¶17

RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 IN THE WRIT PETITION:-

¶18

PADMINI, W/O.C.N.KRISHNAN @ ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT AMBALAKATTU HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PIN - 683 565, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE AND TALUK

¶19

SIVADAS KRISHNAN,

¶20

S/O.C.N.KRISHNAN @ ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT AMBALAKATTU HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PIN - 683 565, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE AND TALUK.

¶21

SMITESH KRISHNAN, S/O.C.N.KRISHNAN @ ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT AMBALAKATTU HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PIN - 683 565, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE AND TALUK.

¶22

W.A.NO.1052 OF 2013

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

SMITHA DEVI, D/O.C.N.KRISHNAN @ ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT AMBALAKATTU HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PIN - 683 565, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE AND TALUK.

¶25

R1 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI.K.C.ELDHO.

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶27

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran, J.

¶28

W.A.No.1052 of 2013

¶29

Dated this, the 25^th day of July, 2013

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

K.Vinod Chandran,.J.

¶32

The State, tenaciously, is before us on the issue of interpretation of the definition of “family” as provided under Article 42(i) read with Explanation of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Stamp Act”). Though we appreciate the tenacity, we cannot but underline the futility since the issue is no longer res integra . We have clearly interpreted the definition in State of Kerala and others v. Manuel [2013 (1) KHC 765 (DB) = 2013 (1) KLT 825] and reiterated the same in W.A.No.975 of 2013. Despite the interpretation given having not been unsettled by a superior Court, the State has filed the above appeal in pursuit of revenue, by way of more stamp duty.

¶33

¶34

W.A.No.1052 of 2013

¶35

We have said in the above referred decisions

¶36

that the definition of “family” would take in the persons specifically mentioned therein and any permutation and combination of the persons so mentioned. We also specifically found that the death of the father and mother will not efface the status of children to one of mere brothers and sisters.

¶37

The brief facts of the instant case is that one Narayanan was the “ pattom tenant ” of the subject property, who, from his wife Kunji Amma, had three children, viz., C.N.Krishnan, Lakshmi Amma and Radha alias Radhamma. Narayanan and his wife Kunji Amma died intestate and the jenm right over the property devolved upon their children Krishan, Lakshmi Amma and Radha. Lakshmi Amma assigned her 1/3^rd right over the property to her brother Krishnan. Krishnan died subsequently. The wife and children of deceased Krishnan and his sister Radha sought to partition the property, which the State maintains is outside the definition of “family”.

¶38

¶39

W.A.No.1052 of 2013

¶40

We are surprised, since we have time and

¶41

again answered the said question. Narayanan's children and the legal heirs of his children are attempting to partition their property between themselves. If that is not “family”, then the State requires to look into the definition again, which it is competent so to do. We are afraid that the appeal is totally devoid of merit and we dismiss the same, sustaining the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶42

The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶43

Sd/Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice

¶44

Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.

¶45

vku/-

¶46

( true copy )

The State of Kerala v. Padmini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala v. Padmini

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

P.Kamalakshi Vs Salim Javed

Mulamthuruthy Grama Panchyath Vs the Ombudsman for Local Self Govt.Instit

The Chairman and Managing Director & Ors. Vs Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair

Sukumar N Oommen Vs Dr.I Vijaya Kumar

M.K.S.Earth Movers, Rep. by Its Propriet Vs Tahsildar, Ponnani and Others

K.Raghavan Vs Sobha Koshy