In this second appeal regarding a partition suit, the High Court dismissed the challenge to a decree confirming the plaintiff's title based on registered deeds. The court held that the registered assignment deed cannot be ignored absent a specific suit or counter-claim to set it aside.
Second appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
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
WEDNESDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1940
SA.No. 109 of 2002
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2001 IN A.S.NO. 607/1998 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN DATED 28.09.1998 O.S.NO.298/1992 of MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY
APPELLANT/APPELLANT & DEFENDANT:
UNNIKRISHNAN S/O DECEASED PUTHENVEETTIL APPUKUTTY, RESIDING AT CHELAKKARA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DIST. (DIED)
*ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 AND 3: ADDL.A2 VARSHA UNNIKRISHNAN D/O LATE UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O PUTHENVEETTIL APPUKUTTY, RESIDING AT CHELAKKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 586
ADDL.A3 VISHNU UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O LATE UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O PUTHENVEETTIL APPUKUTTY RESIDING AT CHELAKKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 586
*** THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.A2 AND A3 AS PER ORDER DATED 20/8/18 IN I.A. 2357/2018 (IA 6/2018).**
BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SMT.P.F.ROSY SRI.SURESH SAMUEL SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 BHASKARAN, S/O PUTHENVEETTIL APPUKUTTY, RESIDING AT CHELAKKARA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK,, TRICHUR DIST.
SA.No. 109 of 2002 2
2 BHARGAVY W/O.LATE PUTHENVEETTIL APPUKUTTY, RESIDING AT CHELAKKARA VILLAGE,, TALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DIST.
7 VALSALA W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN RESIDING AT PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE,CHELAKKARA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DIST.
BY ADVS. SMT.RAGAM.K.P. SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SMT.RENJU V.
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SA.No. 109 of 2002 3
JUDGMENT
The second appeal against the decree and judgment
dated 28.09.1998 in O.S.No.298/1992 of Munsiff Court, Wadakkancherry and in A.S.No.607/1998 of the District Court, Thrissur.
SA.No. 109 of 2002 4
which the property has been divided into two equal half with the building therein. Subsequently, on 23/2/1990, Ext.A3 Assignment Deed was executed by the father Appukutty in favour of the plaintiff by which his right over the one half of the property was assigned for valid consideration. Appukutty died on 1/10/1991, evident from Ext.A4 death certificate. The suit was filed in the year 1992.
that, the Appukutty had no occasion to execute Ext.A3 Assignment Deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was interalia contended that the said document got into existence by playing fraud on him. Ext.B1 to B6 documents were produced to show that the building situated in the property was constructed by the present defendants.
Ext.A3 Assignment Deed. No counter claim was also raised in the said suit for setting aside Ext.A3 Assignment Deed. On the other hand, the original of Ext.A3, a registered assignment deed produced by the plaintiff to establish his exclusive title over the property. Further, no much weight can be given to Ext.B1 to B6 document, because of the reason that even at the
SA.No. 109 of 2002 5
time of partition Ext.A4, the building as well as the landed property was divided. The building portion which was situated in his share was assessed in the name of Appukutty for the purpose of payment of building tax. As discussed earlier the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the property by virtue of Ext.A1 to A3 Registered Deeds and no suit for setting aside those document either filed or brought into existence. No counter claim was also so far raised. When there is a registered document, it cannot be ignored when it was executed by the lawful title owner. There should be a prayer to set aside the document or for his cancellation. Unless there is a prayer for setting aside the document or cancellation and when it was found to be executed by the lawful owner no one can ignore it.
Second appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a registered assignment deed executed by the lawful title owner can be ignored without a prayer for setting it aside or cancellation.
Whether the defendants filed a suit or counter claim to set aside the registered assignment deed.
UNNIKRISHNAN
BHASKARAN
BHARGAVY
VISWANATHAN
CHANDRAN
SAROJA
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
