High Court dismissed a review petition filed against its judgment in RSA 952/2005. The court held that omission of the husband's interest in self-acquired property was not a ground for review, especially as no suit to set aside the deed was pending.
Review petition dismissed without 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 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941
RP.No.300 of 2019 IN RSA. 952/2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.7.18 IN RSA 952/2005 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.S.NO.89/1992 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT OF KOTTARAKKARA
O.S NO.5/1988 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT OF KOTTARAKKARA
1 RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN,KUZHITHADATHIL MELETHIL VEEDU,KALAVAYAL, OYOR.P.O,KOLLAM-691533.
2 ASWATHY.R, D/O.BHARATHIKUTTY RAMANY, KUZHITHADATHIL MELETHIL VEEDU, KALAVAYAL,OYOOR.P.O,KOLLAM-691533.
3 ANEESH.R, S/O.BHARATHIKUTTY RAMANY, KUZHITHADATHIL MELETHIL VEEDU, KALAVAYAL,OYOOR.P.O,KOLLAM-691533.
BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3:
1 KOCHUMON GEEVARGHESE, RESIDING AT ST.GEORGE HOUSE, KALAVAYAL,VELINALLUR,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691510.
2 SREEDHARAN RAMACHANDRAN, VADAKKETHIL,KUZHITHADAM,KALAVAYAL, VELINALLUR,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691510.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.300 of 2019 IN RSA. 952/2005 2
ORDER
This petition was filed to review the judgment
dated 6.7.2018 in RSA No.952 of 2005 on the ground that Ext.B1 document was executed only by the first
defendant and not by her husband and that it will not convey the entire right over the property. The
suit was filed for declaration of title and possession based on the deed of alienation made by the first defendant. The question was elaborately considered by this court in the connected RSA No.1085 of 2005 that the sale deed executed by the first defendant was found to be valid and
operative. This property was given to the first defendant by her mother prior to her marriage both in her name and in the name of her would be husband in consideration of her parental share, as such, the would be husband is only a name lender.
RP.No.300 of 2019 IN RSA. 952/2005 3
Further no suit was brought up to set aside the sale deed executed by the first defendant or its subsequent document and time available for setting aside the document stood as barred by limitation.
This was taken as the main ground by this court. The non-consideration of right, title or interest over the property in favour of first defendant would be husband, hence pales into insignificance. This cannot be a ground for reviewing the earlier decision. Hence, there is no reason for reviewing the appeal. This review petition is hereby dismissed, but without costs.
This review petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE
pm
// TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can review its earlier judgment on the ground that the title of the first respondent to the self-acquired property was omitted.
Whether omission of the would-be husband's right in the earlier judgment constitutes a ground for review.
Whether the limitation period for setting aside the alienation document has been barred.
Ramachandran, S/o. Sreedharan
Aswathy.R
Aaneesh.R
Kochumon Geevarghese
Sreedharan Ramachandran
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
