Dismissed

Santhakumari v. Vahid

Kerala HC17 Jan 2014RP/132/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition filed after the retirement of the judge who pronounced the judgment, the appellate court examined whether the dismissal of the second appeal was correct. The court found no error as there were no specific pleadings in the plaint to support the appellant's claim.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed as there was no error apparent on the face of the judgment.

Santhakumari Vs Vahid — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/27TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

RP.No. 132 of 2012 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RSA. NO.825/2011 DATED 26-09-2011.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

¶8

1. SANTHAKUMARI, W/O.LATE P.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, VRINDAVAN GARDENS, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM.

¶9

2. DEVIKA, D/O.LATE P.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, VRINDAVAN GARDENS, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.LEO GEORGE.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. VAHID, S/O.KUNJU MYTHEEN KUNJU, KURUTTAZHIKATHU VEEDU, MANAKATTU CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

2. KABEER, S/O.KUNJU MYTHEEN KUNJU, KURUTTAZHIKATHU VEEDU, MANAKATTU CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶14

3. JALALUDEEN, S/O.KUNJU MYTHEEN KUNJU, KURUTTAZHIKATHU VEEDU, MANAKATTU CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶15

4. NAZEEMA, W/O.LATE ABDUL BASHEER, SUFINA MANZIL, ASHRAMAM CHERRY, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶16

5. A. SULFI, SUFINA MANZIL, ASHRAMAM CHERRY, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶17

6. SUFINA, SUFINA MANZIL, ASHRAMAM CHERRY, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶18

7. GOPIKA, D/O.LATE P.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, VRINDAVAN GARDENS, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691 005.

¶19

RP.No. 132 of 2012

¶20

8. AMBIKA, VRINDAVAN GARDENS, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691 005.

¶21

9. RENUKA, VRINDAVAN GARDENS, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691 005.

¶22

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR, SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL, SRI.M.KISHORKUMAR. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE.

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

rs.

¶25

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶26

=================== R.P. No. 132 of 2012 in R.S.A No. 825 of 2011

¶27

===================== Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2014.

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Judgment was pronounced by this Court on

¶30

26.09.2011. After the Hon'ble judge who pronounced the judgment retired from service this petition has been filed stating that the Court omitted to consider certain vital aspects. The appellant wanted to contend that they are entitled to get protection under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. It is for the appellant to plead and prove that the lease of the property in question was obtained prior to 20.05.1967 and that it was for commercial purpose. Further, it must also be proved that pursuant to the lease the grantee constructed building for the said commercial purpose. Since, there is no specific averments in the plaint, except stating as to what is the law under Section 106 of the KLR Act, there is no specific pleading

¶31

R.P. No. 132 of 2012 : 2 : in R.S.A No. 825 of 2011

¶32

that the lease was obtained prior to 20.05.1967 or that pursuant to the said lease, grantee had constructed any building or structures for commercial purpose prior to 20.05.1967. Hence, it was specifically found by this Court that there is no such pleading in the plaint entitling the appellant to claim protection under Section 106 of KLR Act. Accordingly, the second appeal was dismissed. There is no error apparent on the face of the judgment. I find no ground for review.

¶33

This review petition is hence dismissed.

¶34

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶35

// TRUE COPY//

¶36

P.A TO JUDGE

¶37

Santhakumari v. Vahid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhakumari v. Vahid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

St.Francis Reading Association Mattom Vs St.Thomas Ferona Church Mattom

Balakrishna Pillai Vs Muralidharan Nair

Jose Vs K.G.Krishnakumar

Aruvampalli Puthiyapurayil Hamza Vs Puthiyapurayil Rukhiyabi

Mochamannil Aboobacker Vs P.N.Kishor Kumar

Sajan, S/O.Manjooran Jose Vs Alphonsa, W/O.Edatukaran Varghese