Dismissed

Parangodan v. Kumaran

Kerala HC10 Feb 2016RSA/201/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a partition suit, the court examined documents and evidence to determine if the respondent was the son of Unnaman. The court held that public documents prima facie established his sonship and noted the appellants did not dispute his lineage, only his legitimacy, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed with the_All interlocutory applications closed.

Parangodan Vs Kumaran — Partition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/21ST MAGHA, 1937

¶5

RSA.No. 201 of 2013 (G)

¶6

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN AS.NO. 91/2007 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM)

¶7

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS.NO. 413/2005 OF MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM)

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶9

1. PARANGODAN, 80 YEARS, S/O. CHAMI, PULAVALLY HOUSE, ALANAGAD POST, OTTAPALAM-678 637.

¶10

2. PANCHALI, 54 YEARS, D/O. UNNAMAN, KADAYAVEETTILTHODI HOUSE, VENGASSERY POST, OTTAPALAM.

¶11

3. RAMAKRISHNAN, 64 YEARS, S/O. UNNAMAN, PULAVALLY HOUSE, ALANAGAD POST, OTTAPALAM.

¶12

4. PRABHAKARAN, 59 YEARS, S/O. UNNAMAN, PULAVALLY HOUSE, ALANAGAD POST, OTTAPALAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶14

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶15

KUMARAN, 59 YEARS, S/O. PULAVALLY LATE UNNAMAN, ALANGAD AMSOM, DESOM AND POST, PIN-678 637.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI. RAVI K. PARIYARATH

¶17

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶20

R.S.A.No.201 of 2013

¶21

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The defendants in a suit for partition are the

¶24

appellants.

¶25

The suit property belonged to two persons

¶26

namely Unnaman and Parangodan. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against one Parangodan alleging that the plaintiff is the son of Unnaman, claiming one half share in the suit property. According to the plaintiff, Unnaman died on 21.1.2001. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff is not the son of Unnaman. According to the defendant, Unnaman married one Janaki and there are three children in that wedlock. It was alleged by the

¶27

R.S.A.No.201 of 2013

¶28

¶29

defendant that the children of Unnaman are Panchali, Ramakrishnan and Prabhakaran. In the light of the said contention raised by the defendant, the aforesaid three persons were impleaded by the plaintiff as additional defendants 2 to 4 in the suit. When the matter came up for trial, the plaintiff gave evidence as PW1. In his evidence as PW1, the plaintiff has stated that he is the son of Unnaman. He also stated that his mother is Kalyani. He produced a few documents describing him as the son of Unnaman as also Kalyani. Exts.A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8 are the said documents. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has not established that he is the son of Unnaman. However, in appeal, the appellate court relying on the documents referred to above, found that the plaintiff as also defendants 2 to 4 are children of Unnaman and consequently passed a decree declaring the 1/8^th share of the plaintiff over the suit property. The defendants, who are

¶30

R.S.A.No.201 of 2013

¶31

¶32

aggrieved by the said decision of the appellate court have thus come up in this second appeal.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶34

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that that the materials on record are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the son of Unnaman.

¶35

The suit was filed in the year 2005. Ext.A2 is a document executed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1975. In Ext.A2, the plaintiff is described as the son of Unnaman. Ext.A4 and Ext.A7 are electoral cards, in which also, the plaintiff is described as the son of Unnaman. Ext.A5 is a property tax assessment receipt dated 24.8.1987 describing the plaintiff as the son of Unnaman. In Ext.A6 is another property tax assessment receipt dated 23.3.1993 in which the plaintiff is described as the son of Unnaman.

¶36

R.S.A.No.201 of 2013

¶37

¶38

Ext.A8 is a possession certificate dated 6.2.1997 in which the plaintiff is described as the son of Unnaman. All these documents are documents issued by the public authorities long prior to the institution of the suit. The said documents would prima facie indicate that the plaintiff is the son of Unnaman. As noted above, the plaintiff gave evidence as PW1. The defendants who have cross examined the plaintiff at length did not put even a suggestion to him that he is not the son of Unnaman. Instead, the suggestion that was made to the plaintiff was that his mother was not married to Unnaman. In other words, according to me, the defendants do not dispute the fact that the plaintiff is the son of Unnaman and their case is only that the plaintiff is not a person born in a lawful wedlock. The question as to whether the plaintiff is a legitimate son of Unnaman is not relevant in the context of the disputes between the parties in the present suit. In the said view of the matter, I do not find

¶39

R.S.A.No.201 of 2013

¶40

¶41

any merit in the second appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.

¶42

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶43

smm

Parangodan v. Kumaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parangodan v. Kumaran

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

Lissamma Iype Vs Gopalan

The Secretary, Azhikode Grama Vs Ezhuthuveettil Rajalakshmi

Prabhakaran Vs Church of God a Pentecostal Church Rep. by Its Pastor

Baburaj Vs Lalitha

Santhosh Vs Sreedharan

Narayanan Nair Vs District Collector and Another