Review petition dismissed. Court held that since a final finding was made that no valid mortgage existed over the property, the plea regarding 'sthreedhana' execution lacks merit based on *Mary v. Cherchi*. The petition is rejected.
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 P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1940
RP.No. 435 of 2018 IN OPC. NO.1845/2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) NO.1845/2015 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 26-02-2018
REVIEW PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT IN OP(C)
GLADIS JAMES @ DOLY MARTIN DALE VALIYATHOPPU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 & RESPONDENT 1,3 & 4:
R.P.NO.435/2018 IN O.P.(C) NO.1845/2015
:: 2 ::
BY SMT.M.HEMALATHA BY SRI.R.RAMADAS BY SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.Somarajan, J.
R.P. No.435 of 2018 in O.P.(C) No.1845 of 2015
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2018
O R D E R
The review petition filed by the second respondent alleging some mistakes crept in the judgment rendered by this court on 26.2.2018. The decision drawn by a Division Bench of this court in Mary v. Cherchi and others (1980 KLT 353) was placed before this court in support of his argument that 'sthreedhana' is well recognized under the exiting law and not stood as hit by the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Based on the legal proposition laid down in the said decision, it was submitted that this court has not considered existence of a valid 'sthreedhana' and execution of mortgage. It is true that 'sthreedhana' is well recognized especially among Christians under the provisions of erstwhile Travancore-Cochin Christian Succession Act and the same is not amenable for hit under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
R.P. No.435 of 2018 in O.P.(C) No.1845 of 2015
:: 2 ::
whether the mortgage was created using 'sthreedhana' amount and there is a factual finding that no mortgage was created. In fact, there is a finding that there exists no valid mortgage over the property. That finding was accepted by this court. Hence, there is no merit in the review petition.
The review petition deserves only dismissal and I do
so.
sd/P. Somarajan Judge
ahz/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition alleging mistakes in the judgment regarding 'sthreedhana' and mortgage execution is sustainable.
Whether the finding that no valid mortgage exists merits a reopening in a review proceeding.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mary v. Cherchi and othersFollowed¶41
Mary v. Cherchi and others (1980 KLT 353)
Gladis James @ Doly Martin Dale Valiyathoppu
Geoffrey Martin
Gertrude Martin
Agnes Martin @ Moly
Philomina Thomas
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
