The High Court dismissed the appeal against the trial court's remand order. The court held that no substantial question of law was involved, and the order could not be interfered with as the defendant was not denied opportunity to adduce evidence. It also stated that the issue did not require Family Court reference.
The appeal was dismissed. No costs awarded.
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
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 5TH ASWINA, 1943
FAO (RO) NO. 146 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27/08/2013 IN OS 1062/2011 OF III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31/01/2018 IN AS 144/2013 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - VIII, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 8 AND 10/LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
OF 1ST DEFENDANT:
1 MUKESH K.K., AGED 53,S/O LATE KRISHNAN,VISHNU PRIYA HOUSE,MRRA 58,KOLATHERI ROAD,PETTAH,THRIPPUNITHURA, POONITHURA VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682317.
2 GIRISH.K.K, AGED 48,S/O LATE KRISHNAN, VISHNU PRIYA HOUSE,MRRA 58,KOLATHERI ROAD,PETTAH,THRIPPUNITHURA,POONITHURA VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682317.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR SRI.D.SREEKANTH SRI.M.A.HAKKIM SHAH
RESPONDENTS/APPELANT/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6/ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 7,9
& 11/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 6 AND ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS 7,9 &
11:
FAO (RO) NO. 146 OF 2018 2
4 K.AMMINI SHANMUGHAN, AGED ABOUT 68,W/O.LATE K.K.SHANMUGHAN, PALLATHUMPARAMBIL, PONJIKKARA,MULAVUKKAD P.O., PIN-682 504.KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.ANEESH JAMES-R1 SRI.JIJO THOMAS SMT.M.D.BEENA SRI.ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA-R8
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
FAO (RO) NO. 146 OF 2018 3
JUDGMENT
In a suit for partition, just before the pronouncement of judgment, an additional issue was raised by the trial court regarding the status of the plaintiff so as to ascertain whether she is the legally wedded wife of deceased. The suit is one for mere partition. No evidence was adduced in that behalf presumably on the ground that no such issue
was raised or settled by the court for determination.
when the case was taken up for pronouncing judgment. No opportunity was granted to adduce any evidence on the said issue. The order of remand for the abovesaid purpose cannot be interfered with.
is not a suit between the parties to a marriage, though the status of the plaintiff is under challenge in the partition suit. Hence, the issue need not be
referred to the Family Court for adjudication.
FAO (RO) NO. 146 OF 2018 4
No other substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Hence, the appeal fails, dismissed. No
costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE
msp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the order of remand by the trial court regarding an additional issue raised about the plaintiff's status in a partition suit.
Whether the issue regarding the marital status of the plaintiff necessitates reference to the Family Court.
MUKESH K.K.
GIRISH.K.K
MYTHILI
K.K.SUBRAHMANIAN
K.K.PRABHAKARAN
K.AMMINI SHANMUGHAN
PSOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
