Remanded

Sosamma @ Molly v. Powergrid Corporation

Kerala HC6 Jul 2018CRP/322/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court revisited the District Court's order in a revision petition concerning compensation for trees cut from disputed properties. The court addressed issues regarding gift deed validity and evidence of tree removal, setting aside the lower order and remanding the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Order of lower court rejecting O.P.(Elec.) No.243/2013 is set aside; matter remanded for fresh disposal within three months.

Sosamma @ Molly Vs Powergrid Corporation — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

CRP.No. 322 of 2016 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(ELE) 243/2013 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 18-01-2016

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER : -

¶8

SOSAMMA @ MOLLY, 61 YEARS, D/O.NARUVELLI ELI @ ELIAMMA, RUGMINI BHAVAN, VALIYAVILAKAM P.O., KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY MUKTHIAR - HUSBAND - SARATH CHANDRAN, 66 YEARS.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.L.MOHANAN

¶10

SMT.LIGEY ANTONY

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -

¶12

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, UGRAPURAM, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, P.O.UGRAPURAM, BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER PIN - 676 505.

¶13

VARGHESE N.M., 74 YEARS, S/O.ELI @ ELIAMMA, NARUVELIL HOUSE, KODENCHERY AMSOM, DESOM, KODENCHERY P.O. 676 505.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEESH.M BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

DMR/-

¶17

P. SOMARAJAN, J.

¶18

C.R.P. No. 322 of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 06^th day of July, 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This revision is filed against the order dated 18.11.2016 in O.P.(Ele.)No.243/2013 of the District Judge, Calicut. This O.P. was filed by the revision petitioner claiming compensation in respect of the trees cut and removed from 'A' schedule property having an extent of 25 cents and also from 'B' schedule property having an extent of 34 cents being a co-owner with the second respondent on the death of his mother. In so far as A schedule property is concerned, the petitioner claims right by way of a gift deed executed in the year 1991 by the mother. B schedule property was left out by the mother at the time of her death leaving the petitioner and the second respondent as her legal heirs. So, the petitioner claimed full compensation over the trees cut and removed from A schedule and one half share over the trees cut and removed from B schedule property. It is also disputed by the second respondent that no trees were cut and removed from A schedule property. But, it was submitted by the

¶22

C.R.P. No. 322 of 2016

¶23

¶24

learned counsel for the revision petitioner that A schedule property is the eastern portion of large extent of 59 cents and the electric line was drawn at east-west direction. It was also submitted that the Commissioner who visited the property reported cut and removal of trees from A schedule property also.

¶25

The contention raised by the second respondent is that Exhibit A2 cannot be said to be a valid document as it was not accepted during the life time of mother. Parting with possession of property by the donor to the donee under a gift, except in the case of Muslims, is not necessary to complete the gift. What is to be looked into is whether the gift was accepted by the donee. Acceptance of gift can be express or implied and even a mere knowledge regarding the execution and registration of gift over an immovable property to the donee is sufficient to bring the matter within the purview of acceptance of gift, unless he had opted to reject the same by his express action/deed. A mere fact that the donor has retained the possession will not affect a valid gift given under a registered document and a mere knowledge of execution of a registered gift deed amounts to acceptance of

¶26

C.R.P. No. 322 of 2016

¶27

¶28

gift. Hence, the finding rendered by the District Judge in that behalf does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶29

Regarding the second issue, the exclusive claim over

¶30

the trees cut and removed from A schedule property was rejected on the ground that there is no evidence to show that trees were cut and removed from A schedule property. Though the Commissioner visited the property and reported passing of electric line both through A and B Schedule properties, he was not in a position to ascertain whether any trees were cut and removed from A and B schedule properties. There may be records available with the first respondent with respect to the cut and removal of trees through the electric line drawn. That document has not been produced either by the petitioner or by the first or second respondents, which, according to me, is relevant so as to resolve the dispute involved. Hence, I am of the view that one more chance can be granted to the petitioner to agitate the said issue before the Lower Court.

¶31

Hence the order of the Lower Court rejecting O.P.(Elec.) No.243/2013 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded

¶32

C.R.P. No. 322 of 2016

¶33

¶34

back to the Lower Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Lower Court on 27.07.2018 and the Lower Court shall dispose of the matter within a period of three months from that day onwards. No order as to costs.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶37

DMR/-

Sosamma @ Molly v. Powergrid Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sosamma @ Molly v. Powergrid Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunhu Mohammed Vs Ala-Panangad Sahib Masjid Juma-Ath

Nalini Vs Viswambharan

Kunikattil Gopalan Vs Village Officer

Harikrishnan Vs Rajamma Geetha

Kuniyil Syed Ammed Haji Vs Kammanol Syed Kathiya

Janardanan Sivadasan Vs Kochummen Geevarghese