Dismissed

Janardanan Sivadasan v. Kochummen Geevarghese

Kerala HC6 Jul 2018RSA/952/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular second appeal regarding a suit for declaration of title and possession over 18 cents of property, the Court rejected the appellants' contentions regarding lack of husband's permission, wrong transaction, and prior gift deed. Upholding the lower courts' findings of the plaintiff's valid title and possession, the appeal failed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Janardanan Sivadasan Vs Kochummen Geevarghese — 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

RSA.No. 952 of 2005

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.1.2005 IN AS 89/1992 OF THE SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ND DECREE DATED27.10.1992 IN OS NO.5/1988 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶8

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 2 AND 3.

¶9

1 JANARDHANAN SIVADASAN, (SIVAN KUTTY),

¶10

RESIDING AT VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, KUZHITHADAM, KALAVAYAL, VELINALLUR, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶11

2 BHARATHYKUTTY RAMANY, OF DO. DO. (DIED, LRS. IMPLEADED)

¶12

ADDL.APPELLANTS:

¶13

RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, KUZHITHADATHIL MELETHIL VEEDU, KALAVAYL, OYOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 533.

¶14

ASWATHY R., D/O.BHARATHIKUTTY RAMANY, KUZHITHADATHIL MELETHIL VEEDU, KALAVAYAL, OYOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 533.

¶15

ANEESH R., S/O.BHARATHIKUTTY RAMANY, KUZHITHADATHIL MELETHIL VEEDU, KALAVAYAL, OYOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 533.

¶16

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED 2ND APPELLANT ARE

¶17

IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 3 TO 5 AS PER ORDER DATED 5.7.2013 IN I.A.NO.1689/13.

¶18

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶19

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS;PLAINTIFF AND DEFTS 1 & 4.:

¶20

KOCHUMON GEEVARGHESE, RESIDING AT ST.GEORGE HOUSE, KALAVAYAL, VELINALLUR,, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶21

KUNJIKUTTY BHARATHYKUTTY, VADAKKETHIL KUZHITHADAM, KALAVAYAL, VELINALLUR, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶22

SREEDHARAN RAMACHANDRAN, OF DO.

¶23

R1 BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL

¶24

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.07.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

P.Somarajan, J.

¶26

R.S.A. No.952 of 2005 (E)

¶27

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of July, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Appeal against the decree and judgment, dated 29.1.2005, in A.S.No.89 of 1992 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.5 of 1988 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara.

¶30

The suit was for declaration of title and possession over 18 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.386/1-1 of Velinallur Village, filed by the plaintiff based on Ext.A1 sale deed alleged to have been executed by the first defendant in the year 1968. Ext.B1 is the prior title deed of the year 1950 by which the first defendant obtained the property and it was later

¶31

on given to the plaintiff by executing Ext.A1 sale deed in the year 1968. The second defendant is her husband.

¶32

R.S.A. No.952 of 2005 (E)

¶33

:: 2 ::

¶34

The contention raised by the defendants is that the first defendant executed the document without obtaining permission from her husband, second defendant. Another contention was also raised stating that it was only a wrong transaction and they never intended to convey the property by way of sale and Ext.A1 registered sale deed was executed only as an abundant caution in order to secure a loan transaction. But, no suit for setting aside Ext.A1 document of the year 1968 was so far filed either by the first defendant or her husband, second defendant. It was also inter alia contended that in the year 1985 she had executed a gift deed in favour of her children conveying a large extent of 50 cents of property including the 18 cents included in the present suit. At the time of execution of the abovesaid gift deed in the year 1985 she was not having any transferable right by virtue of execution of Ext.A1 sale deed in the year 1968. As such, it is not binding on the plaintiff.

¶35

R.S.A. No.952 of 2005 (E)

¶36

:: 3 ::

¶37

The concurrent finding rendered by both the trial court and the first appellate court regarding valid title and possession of the property with the plaintiff and the resultant decree passed do not call for any interference by this court. Hence the second appeal fails, deserves only dismissal and I do so, but without costs.

¶38

Sd/P. Somarajan Judge

¶39

ahz/

Janardanan Sivadasan v. Kochummen Geevarghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardanan Sivadasan v. Kochummen Geevarghese

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

Sosamma @ Molly Vs Powergrid Corporation

Harikrishnan Vs Rajamma Geetha

Kuniyil Syed Ammed Haji Vs Kammanol Syed Kathiya