Partly allowed

H.Somanatha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2018WP(C)/9113/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order by the Appellate Authority dismissing an application for production of trust documents in a pending appeal. The High Court set aside the impugned order, directing the Authority to consider the application only at the final hearing of the main appeal and ordering timely disposal within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; I.A. No.29 of 2017 remitted for consideration at final hearing of main appeal; disposal directed within two months.

H.Somanatha Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 9113 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

1 H.SOMANATHA

¶8

AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KARIYAPPU, RESIDING NEAR KAILAS THEATRE, DURGA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD P O, KANHANGAD-671315.

¶9

2 H.KAMALAKSHA

¶10

AGED 67 YEARS, D/O.KARIYAPPU, RESIDING NEAR KAILAS THEATRE, DURGA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD P O, KANHANGAD-671315.

¶11

3 PRAVEENKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE JARAPPA, RESIDING NEAR KAILAS THEATRE, DURGA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD P O, KANHANGAD-671315.

¶12

4 H.SUBRAMANYAN AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE JARAPPA, RESIDING NEAR KAILAS THEATRE, DURGA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD P O, KANHANGAD-671315.

¶13

5 ESHWARI, AGED 38 YEARS,D/O.LATE JARAPPA, RESIDING NEAR KAILAS THEATRE, DURGA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD P O, KANHANGAD-671315.

¶14

6 SAMBATHKUMAR AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.LATE JARAPPA, RESIDING NEAR KAILAS THEATRE, DURGA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD P O, KANHANGAD-671315.

¶15

7 USHA

¶16

AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.LATE JARAPPA, RESIDING NEAR KAILAS THEATRE, DURGA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD P O, KANHANGAD-671315.

¶17

BY ADVS.SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN SMT.S.KAVITHA

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)

¶19

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶20

2. APPELLATE AUTHORITY(LAND REFORMS) KANNUR 670002. 3. P.ACHU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O.LATE HOOVAPPA, PRESIDENT, SREE RAKTHESWARI CUHITTA DEVASTHANAM, HOSUDRG, RESIDING AT KOTTACHERY P O, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KANHANGAD-611315.

¶21

4. H.SUSHEELA AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.GOPALA KRISHNAN, KOVVALPALLI, P O KANHANGAD SOUTH, PIN-671531.

¶22

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADVS. SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

mks

¶25

WP(C).No. 9113 of 2018 (L)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶28

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/11/2017 IN IA.29/2017 IN A.A.NO.50/2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF

¶29

THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR.

¶30

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

mks

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶36

W.P.(C)No.9113 of 2018

¶37

Dated this the 04^th day of July, 2018

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioners herein are the petitioners/applicants in I.A.No.29 of 2017 in (Appeal Application) A.A.No.50 of 2004 filed before the 2^nd respondent/Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Kannur by contesting respondent No.3. The prayer in I.A.No.29 of 2017 was seeking production of the originals of the registered trust deed bearing No.40/2014 registered before the S.R.O., Hosdurg in the name of Sree Raktheswari Uchitta Devasthanam, minutes book of the said trust from 10.3.2014, the date of constitution of the trust till date and passbook of the accounts in the name of the trust in various banks including that of the Indian Bank, Kanhangad which are in possession of the 3^rd respondent.

¶40

The petitioner would urge that the main point for consideration was whether I.A.No.29 of 2017 in A.A.No.50 of 2004 was to be allowed so as to direct the 3^rd respondent herein to produce the documents as sought for by the petitioner and that, instead of considering that vital issue, the 2^nd respondent/appellate authority has held that the documents of which production as sought for by the petitioner in that I.A. are not required at this stage and that the matter

¶41

W.P.(C)No.9113/2018

¶42

..2..

¶43

in that I.A. be considered only at the time of final hearing of the main appeal. Accordingly the said I.A. was dismissed as per the impugned Ext.P1 order dated 4.11.2017. It is this order at Ext.P1 dated 4.11.2017 rendered by the 2^nd respondent/appellate authority, that is under challenge in this writ petition. The prayers in this writ petition (civil) are as follows:-

¶44

“( i) Call for the records of the case and issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate Writ or Order quashing Exbt.P1 order passed by the 2^nd respondent;

¶45

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the 3^rd respondent to produce the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners herein in I.A No.29/2017 in A.A No.50/2004 pending on the files of the 2^nd respondent;

¶46

(iii) Grant the petitioners the cost of this proceeding to be recovered from the 3^rd respondent;

¶47

AND

¶48

(iv) To pass such other further orders and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems just and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶49

Heard Sri.Bepin Vijayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.K.Jayesh Mohankumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this writ petition notice to respondent No.4 will stand dispensed with.

¶50

W.P.(C)No.9113/2018

¶51

..3..

¶52

Sri.Bepin Vijayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the above said documents mentioned in the I.A. were sought for primarily on the ground that if those documents are called for it could be established that the appeal has been filed by the contesting respondent No.3 without the consent of the Trustees and that if that is established, such an appeal filed in the personal capacity of the 3^rd respondent is not maintainable so as to challenge the issuance of the impugned purchase certificate in favour of the petitioner. Per contra, Sri.K.Jayesh Mohankumar, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.3 would submit that the appeal was filed before the 2^nd respondent/appellate authority seeking cancellation of the impugned purchase certificate, pursuant to the decree dated 16.3.2007 secured in O.S.No.436 of 1999 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg, wherein it has been conclusively found that the said purchase certificate has been obtained by fraud and that the said decree has become final and conclusive. That the petitioners 1 and 2 herein were arrayed as the defendants 2 and 3 therein and that the said suit was filed by the above said Trust represented by the 3^rd respondent herein, who was the President of the Trust and that therefore merely because the appellant has been described as the individual, who is the president of the said

¶53

W.P.(C)No.9113/2018

¶54

..4..

¶55

Trust, is no substantial ground for holding that the 3^rd respondent has no locus to maintain the said appeal before the appellate authority. This Court is not proposing to enter into the merits of the controversy, as it is found even in the impugned Ext.P1 order by the appellate authority that the matter in that I.A. need be considered only at the time of final hearing of the main appeal. Therefore without getting into the merits of the matter, the impugned order at Ext.P1 is set aside and I.A.No.29 of 2017 in A.A.No.50 of 2004 will stand remitted to the 2^nd respondent appellate authority.

¶56

The 2^nd respondent appellate authority will consider the said I.A. as and when the main appellate matter in A.A.No.50 of 2004 is taken up for final hearing and after hearing both sides, orders should be passed in the said I.A. in accordance with law. The petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent/appellate authority for necessary information.

¶57

Having regard to the fact that the main appellate matter in A.A.No.50 of 2004 has been instituted as early as in the year 2004, it is also ordered that the 2^nd respondent appellate authority will take up the matter in A.A.No.50 of 2004 for final hearing and may pass appropriate orders on the above said I.A. as directed hereinabove and should also

¶58

..5..

¶59

W.P.(C)No.9113/2018

¶60

ensure that the main matter in the appeal is disposed of without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner may produce a certified copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent appellate authority for necessary information.

¶61

Sri.Bepin Vijayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners would limit their prayer in I.A.29 of 2017 in the matter of production of the originals of the registered Trust Deed in the name of the above said Trust, minutes book of the said Trust from 10.3.2014 till date and that they will not insist for the production of pass book of accounts in the name of the Trust in various banks.

¶62

The appellate authority need not consider the plea for production of the pass book relating to the accounts in the name of the Trust in various banks, as now fairly conceded by the petitioners.

¶63

With these observations and directions, the above writ petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶66

skj

H.Somanatha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Somanatha v. State of Kerala

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

Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs the District Registrar (General)

Jasmi Vs the District Collector

Sanooja.v.Nair Vs the Registrar of Births and Deaths

Muneerul Anam Sangham Akode Vs the District Registrar(General)

M/S. Hi-Lite Relators [India] LLP Vs the State of Kerala

Ummathutty Vs the Land Tribunal