A review petitioner challenged a judgment directing the Sub-Registrar to register a deed, claiming she received no notice and was abroad. The court found the petitioner had other recourse and dismissed the review.
Review petition dismissed. No costs.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
RP.No. 968 of 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.25048/2014, DATED 18-11-2014
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/2ND RESPONDENT :
ALIYAMMA S. MOSBY, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O.LATE IDICCULA SKARIAH, LAHETHU HOUSE, THELLIYOOR MURY, THELLIYOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 44 ALBERT STREET, WALTHAM, MA02453, U.S.A
BY ADVS.SRI.V.SETHUNATH
SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER :
1. SKARIYAH PHILIP, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. LATE IDICCULA SKARIAH, LAHETHU HOUSE, THELLIYOOR MURY, THELLIYOOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, VENNIKULAM S.R.O, VENNIKULAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN- 689 544.
3. SANTHOSH,
S/O.CHELLAPPAN ACHARI, KAVUMPURATHU HOUSE, SOUTH OF THELLIYOOR KAVU, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN- 689 544.
R1 BY ADV.SRI.V.K.SUNIL
R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
RP.No. 968 of 2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE AIR TICKET ISSUED TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE 2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.443/2007 SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE VENNIKKULAM DATED 17.03.2007. ANNEXURE 3: THE COPY OF THE CURRENT TAX RECEIPT.
ANNEXURE 4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE COURT OF BELOW.
ANNEXURE 5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.31/2006 ON THE VENNIKKULAM S.R.O.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
*****************************************************
R.P.No.968 of 2014
in
W.P.(C) No.25048 of 2014
***************************************************** Dated this the 10th day of December, 2014
ORDER
The review petitioner is the second respondent in the
writ petition. The review petitioner submits that she did not
receive any notice from this Court and the notice appears to have been received by the writ petitioner by showing the same address of the residence of the writ petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the judgment was delivered without hearing the review petitioner. The review petitioner
submits that she was at the relevant point of time in United States of America and she came only on the day when the judgment was delivered. This Court directed the Registrar to
follow the directions of the civil court in a dispute pending before the civil court for registering any document presented
R.P.No.968 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No.25048 of 2014 2
by the review petitioner. This Court did not pass any order interdicting the right of the review petitioner to present any document. According to the writ petitioner, there was a direction from civil court restraining the review petitioner from executing any document in respect of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, it is open for the review petitioner to approach the civil court to vacate that order. Based on the directions of the civil court, if the order is vacated, the review petitioner is free to present any document for registration. In
view of the above, there is no other reason to review the judgment.
The review petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ln
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition should be allowed to vacate a judgment delivered in the absence of the petitioner who claimed lack of notice.
Whether the petitioner had locus to present documents to the Sub-Registrar despite arguments of prior restraint by a civil court on the same property.
Whether there is any ground to review the judgment of the writ court which restrained the registration of a deed.
Aliymma S. Mosby
Skariyah Philip
The Sub Registrar, Vennikulam S.R.O
Santhosh
A.Muhamad Mustaque
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
