High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed by an appellant challenging ownership of property and maintainability of a suit, holding that grounds available in an appeal are not sufficient for review unless there is an apparent error on the face of record.
Review petition dismissed; No costs to the respondent.
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 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 16TH ASWINA, 1940 RP.No. 772 of 2018 IN RSA. 966/2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RSA No. 966/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, DATED 09.07.2018
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
ALEXANDER @ RAJAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, CONDUCTING SHEEJA BAKERY, KACHERY ROAD, PUNALUR, FROM CHARUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, SASTHAMKONAM, PUNALUR VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
THANKAMMA JOHNSON, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O. MONEY JOHNSON, VAIZAKH BENGLOW, (VANVILA CHARALSPURAM), KIZHAKKEMURI, PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 689696.
BY. ADV. SRI. P.B. KRISHNAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. No.772 of 2018
2
ORDER
This review petition is filed by the defendant/appellant on the ground that the judgment rendered by this Court is wrong as the property involved is not belonged to the plaintiff. It is further alleged that this Court ought not to have been relied on Exhibit A1 mortgage deed. It was also inter alia contended that the suit itself as framed is not maintainable. The plaintiff, being not the owner of the property, is not entitled to maintain a suit of this nature. It is also contended that the son of the plaintiff has no locus standi to participate in the proceedings.
R.P. No.772 of 2018
3
under the purview of the ground which was available for review. Hence,
review lacks in merits, deserves only dismissal and I do so. No costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
DMR/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether allegations regarding ownership of property and locus standi constitute grounds apparent on the face of the record for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Alexander @ Rajan
Thankamma Johnson
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
