Disposed

Aravindan v. Lakshmikutty Amma

Kerala HC7 Aug 2018WP(C)/22182/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal's order granting cancellation of settlement deeds was a non-speaking order. It set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a speaking order considering rival contentions on merits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Ext.P-8 order set aside and matter remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for a speaking order on merits within two months.

Aravindan Vs Lakshmikutty Amma — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 22182 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ARAVINDAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.K.V. KUNJIRAMAN NAIR, VADASERIKALAM HOUSE, PALLIKURUPPU.P.O., MANARKKAD, PALAKKAD - 678 001, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SUBHASH P.S., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SIVASANKARA MENON, PAKIDEERI HOUSE, ANAMANGAD.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 357.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, D/O.NARAYANI, VADASERIKALAM HOUSE, PALLIKURUPPU, MANARKKAD, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶11

2. RAVINDRAN, S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, NANDANAM, KUMARAMPUTHUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶12

3. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD - 678 001. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.C. VIDHYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

mbr/

¶14

WP(C).No. 22182 of 2018 (W)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXHIBIT P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.H 6031/2013 DATED 31.7.2013 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P2 :	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.1.2014 IN COMPLAINT NO.H 6031/2013 BEFORE THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P3 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.2.2014 PASSED BY THE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL IN COMPLAINT NO.H 6031/2013.
EXHIBIT P4 :	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS O.S.NO.119/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF- MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD DATED 9.7.2014.
EXHIBIT P5 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2014 IN I.A.NO.524/2014 IN O.S.NO.119/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF- MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD.
EXHIBIT P6 :	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.J4.2014/30081/9.
EXHIBIT P7 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J-2014/19303/9 DATED 13.3.2015 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J4-2017/63149/9 DATED 24.3.2018 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE APPEAL PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶18

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ---------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

mbr/ 07.08.2018.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ======================== W.P(C).No.22182 of 2018

¶23

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

¶24

Dated this the 07^th day of August, 2018

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The 1^st respondent herein who is the mother of the petitioner,

¶27

has filed an application/complaint before the Maintenance Tribunal, Ottappalam under the provisions contained in Sec.23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for cancellation of settlement deeds executed by the mother in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner who is one among the six sons of the 1^st respondent in the abovesaid application before the Tribunal and the 2^nd respondent herein, who is another son of the 1^st respondent. Only two persons were arrayed as respondents in the said application. The Maintenance Tribunal had rejected the abovesaid prayer of the 1^st respondent and had passed Ext.P-3 order directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month to the 1^st respondent herein. Ext.P-3 order dated 22.02.2014 was challenged by the 1^st respondent herein before the Appellate Tribunal and the said appeal was also rejected as per Ext.P-7 order dated 13.03.2015 issued by the

¶28

W.P(C).No.22182 of 2018

¶29

¶30

Appellate Tribunal on the finding that there is no express provisions in the settlement deed to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferer, as per the said settlement deeds. The appellate order as per Ext.P-7 herein was challenged by the 1^st respondent herein by filing Writ Petition (Civil) before this Court as W.P(C)No.41148/2016, in which this Court had rendered judgment dated 18.08.2017 whereby, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for consideration afresh, as the reasoning given by the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned Ext.P-7 order was against the dictum laid down by this Court in decision as in Radhamani and others v. State of Kerala reported in [2016(1) KHC 9] and Shabeen Martin and another v. Muriel and another reported in [2016 (5) KHC 603] etc. This Court had clarified in the said judgment dated 18.08.2017 rendered in W.P(C)No.41148/2016 that nothing is expressed on merits of the rival contentions and all such contentions are left open to be raised before the Appellate Tribunal. After the said remand, the Appellate Tribunal has now passed the impugned Ext.P-8 order dated 24.03.2018, whereby the prayer for cancellation of the

¶31

W.P(C).No.22182 of 2018

¶32

¶33

settlement deeds has been granted. It is this order at Ext.P-8, that is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The prayers in this Writ

¶34

Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶35

“i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the original of Ext-P8 order and quash the same;

¶36

ii. issue such other reliefs which may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case; and

¶37

iii. allow this Writ Petition (Civil) with costs.”

¶38

Heard Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel

¶39

appearing for the petitioner and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent. Though notice has been duly served on R1 and R2, those parties have not entered appearance.

¶40

One of the main contention raised by Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned Ext.P-8 order is a non-speaking order and it does not contain any reasons for arriving at the conclusion thereon and that the order is liable to be set aside and remitted on that ground alone. The operative portion of impugned Ext.P-8 Appellate Order dated 24.03.2018 rendered by the 3^rd respondent-Appellate Tribunal reads as follows:

¶41

"മക്കൾ തമമ്മിലുള്ള ഭമ്മിന്നത ഒഴമ്മിവവാക്കവാൻ ഒന്നവാന്നാം എതമ്മിർകകമ്മി

¶42

W.P(C).No.22182 of 2018

¶43

¶44

പപേരമ്മിൽ രജമ്മിസ്റ്റർ ചചെയയ്ത് നൽകമ്മിയമ്മിട്ടുള്ള മണവാർക്കവാടയ്ത് എസയ്ത്.ആർ.ഒ.യമ്മിചലെ 1291/11 നന്നാം. ആധവാരന്നാം റദയ്ത് ചചെയ്യണചമന്ന അപപ്പീലെമ്മിചലെ ആവശശന്നാം പേരമ്മിഗണമ്മിചന്നാം സവാഹചെരശങ്ങളുപടയന്നാം ചതളമ്മിവുകളുപടയന്നാം അടമ്മിസവാനതമ്മിലുന്നാം ഒന്നവാന്നാം എതമ്മിർകകമ്മി ശപ്പീ. അരവമ്മിന്ദൻ എന്നവരുചട പപേരമ്മിൽ ശപ്പീമതമ്മി ലെകമ്മിക്കുടമ്മിഅമ രജമ്മിസ്റ്റർ ചചെയയ്ത് നൽകമ്മിയമ്മിട്ടുള്ള മണവാർക്കവാടയ്ത് എസയ്ത്.ആർ.ഒ.യമ്മിചലെ 1291/11 നന്നാം. ചസറമ്മിൽചമനയ്ത് ആധവാരന്നാം റദയ്ത് ചചെയയ്ത് ഇതമ്മിനവാൽ ഉതരവവാകുന.”

¶45

Since the impugned Appellate Order is a non-speaking order, it is ordered that the matter requires serious reconsideration at the hands of the 3^rd respondent-Appellate Tribunal, after considering on merits the rival contentions on either side. Accordingly, the impugned Ext.P-8 order will stand set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the 3^rd respondentAppellate Tribunal for considering the matter afresh as already directed in the judgment dated 18.08.2017 rendered by this Court in W.P(C)No.41148/2016. The rival contentions of the parties, shall be considered on merits and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard on both sides, a speaking order showing the reasons for arriving at the considered conclusions of the Appellate Tribunal shall be passed by that body, without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶46

W.P(C).No.22182 of 2018

¶47

¶48

With these observations and directions, the above Writ

¶49

Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶52

vgd/08.08.18

Aravindan v. Lakshmikutty Amma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aravindan v. Lakshmikutty Amma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.K. Sarojini Vs the Union of India

Vesu Vs the Special Tahsildar (Lr)

Padmavathy Vs the Land Tribunal, Tirur

Saji Joy Vs the Executive Engineer

Vilasini Velayudhan Vs the Union of India

Kunju Pennu Narayani Vs the Union of India