Disposed

Kottayil Susheela v. Kottayil Sumitra

Kerala HC2 Feb 2018OP(C)/214/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants liberty to a senior citizen petitioner to seek interim maintenance and residence in the trial court regarding her life interest in a property. The petitioner is homeless living in a tent. The High Court directs the trial court to dispose of the suit within 4-5 months due to the petitioner's acute distress.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file an application for interim maintenance and right of residence; trial court directed to dispose suit within 4-5 months.

Kottayil Susheela Vs Kottayil Sumitra — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 13TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

OP(C).No. 214 of 2018

¶6

O.S. NO. 330/2016 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT THALASSERY

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

KOTTAYIL SUSHEELA, W/O. LATE NARAYANAN K.P., 80 YEARS, 'KOTTAYIL HOUSE,', KADIRUR AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.E.K.AVINASH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. KOTTAYIL SUMITRA, W/O. V.V.NANU, AGED 75 YEARS, 'DEEPTHI', NEAR SREE NARAYANA ANGANAVADI, PARAMKUNNU, PONNIAM WEST P.O., THALASERY TALUK - 670 641.

¶12

2. DEEPTHI V.V W/O. VILAS BABU, AGED 38 YEARS, NISHINTH VILAS, 3RD MILE, PONNIAM WEST P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, PIN - 670 641.

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sdr/-

¶15

OP(C).No. 214 of 2018 (O)

¶16

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PATHETIC CONDITION OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 31.5.2016.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO POLICE.
EXHIBIT P3A	RECEIPT 3.8.2016 OF EXHIBIT P3.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 307/2016 IN MUNSIFF COURT THALASSERY.
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 330/2016 IN MUNSIFF COURT THALASSERY.
EXHIBIT P5A	THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN ABOVE SAID OS.
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDE2R IA NO. 2119/2016 IN OS NO. 330/2016 IN THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT THALASSERY.

¶19

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL ----------------------

/TRUE COPY/

sdr/PA TO JUDGE

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

==================

O.P.(C)No.214 of 2018

¶25

==================

¶26

Dated this the 02^nd day of February, 2018

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) are as

¶29

follows:

¶30

[i] Call for the entire records pertaining to the facts promulgated by the petitioner in the original petition in connection with I A No.2119/2016 in OS No.330/2016 in the files of Munsiff's court Thalassery.

¶31

[ii] To issue appropriate order or direction to Munsiff Court Thalassery to dispose the OS No.330/2016 in the files of Munsiff Court Thalassery at the earliest, within a TIME FRAME and DIRECT to maintain status quo, till the disposal of the suits.

¶32

[iii] Such other relief's that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the interest of justice.

¶33

[iv] Award cost of the proceedings.

¶34

Heard Sri.Sherry.J.Thomas, learned counsel

¶35

appearing for the petitioner. In the nature of the orders

¶36

proposed to be passed in this original petition, notice to the respondents will stand dispensed with.

¶37

O.P.(C)No.214 of 2018 - : 2 :-

¶38

On a reading of the impugned Ext.P6 order passed by the Munsiff Court, Thalassery, on I.A.No.2119 of

¶39

2016 in O.S.No.330 of 2016, this Court had expressed a provisional view that the said order cannot be said to be vitiated by gross illegality or manifest perversity, more so particularly because the learned Munsiff has clearly found in the last paragraph on page 7 of the impugned order that the petitioner's life interest in the property cannot be thrown out only on due to the fact that the old house was collapsed and further that the respondents therein are directed to take care of the petitioner to rest of her life etc. Sri.Sherry.J.Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now without any residence and she is literally living on the street, in a tent put up at the initiative of the good samaritans in the locality, as shown in Ext.P1 and that she is financially impecunious to prolong the litigation further. Further, counsel for the petitioner would submit that liberty may be given to the petitioner to file an appropriate interlocutory

¶40

O.P.(C)No.214 of 2018 - : 3 :-

¶41

application before the trial court to effectuate interim relief and ensure protection to the petitioner based on the clear findings in Ext.P6 that her life interest cannot be thrown out merely on the fact that the old house is collapsed and that the respondents are directed to take care of the petitioner to rest of her life etc. and that petitioner would seek appropriate interim reliefs by filing I.A. to ensure that necessary interim maintenance is granted by the respondents in order to effectuate the above said clear cut findings in the last paragraph on page 7 of Ext.P6 and that petitioner should also seek directions to ensure that the defendants provide a separate room with attached bathroom and with independent access to the outside in the new house sought to be constructed by the defendants, to enable the petitioner to have residential facilities till her life time. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that this Court may direct the expeditious completion of the trial in the above original suit. Accordingly, it is ordered that liberty is given to the

¶42

O.P.(C)No.214 of 2018 - : 4 :-

¶43

petitioner to file an appropriate application for claiming interim maintenance and right of residence, etc. as against the respondents herein, if such application is justified. In the light of the above said findings made by the trial court in the last paragraph on page 7 of Ext.P6 order and if such an application is filed, the trial court will ensure that both sides are heard and orders are passed, disposing of that I.A. in accordance with law without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 weeks from the date of submission of such I.A. The trial court will also take due note of the contention made by the petitioner that the life of a senior citizen like the petitioner, is not a chattel and that the Civil Court is constitutionally bound to protect and guarantee the right to dignified life of a senior citizen like the petitioner etc.

¶44

Based on the request made by this Court, the trial court concerned (Munsiff Court, Thalassery) has furnished a report dated 31.1.2018, stating that the case is posted for issues on 9.2.2018 and that no judicial officer is regularly

¶45

O.P.(C)No.214 of 2018 - : 5 :-

¶46

posted as of now and that the judicial officer is having only additional charge and that he would require 6 months time to dispose of the case.

¶47

Having regard to the nature of the acute problems faced by the petitioner/plaintiff, it is ordered that the trial court should see that all reasonable measures are taken to ensure that O.S.No.330 of 2016 is disposed of without much delay, preferably within a period of 4-5 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶48

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶49

Bb/5/2/2018

¶50

[True copy]

¶51

P.A to Judge

Kottayil Susheela v. Kottayil Sumitra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kottayil Susheela v. Kottayil Sumitra

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

Lekshmi Vs Sainudheen

M/S. Group Mukkadan Vs Zerita Ashlin Rocha

Emma (Minor) Vs Jacob Sebastian

Rusha Anil Vs Manoj Kumar

Usha Kumari.S Vs Sankara Narayanan Nair

M.v.George Vs a.J.George