Allowed

Ravindran.R., v. Reeja Sudarshan

Kerala HC11 Oct 2021RFA/60/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the first appeal in part. Setting aside the lower court decree conditioned on the lack of an authorized 1921 survey plan, it remanded the matter for fresh consideration and obtaining the plan. Appeal allowed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Claim allowed in part; decree set aside; matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration with a direction to obtain survey plan.

Ravindran.R., Vs Reeja Sudarshan — Partition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

RFA NO. 60 OF 2019 (F)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 28.07.2018 IN OS No.60/2005 OF

¶7

ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD

¶8

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶9

1 RAVINDRAN.R., AGED 66 YEARS, S/o LATE RADHAKRISHNAN, LINGAPATTARMADAM ROAD, CHAKKAMTHARA, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

(DIED) (LEGAL HEIRS IMPLEADED)

¶11

2 R. MURALI, AGED 45 YEARS,

¶12

S/o RAVINDRAN, 27/395, LINGAPATTARMADAM STREET, CHAKKAMTHARA, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK.

¶13

3 SANJEEVI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/o R.S ANANDAN, GARAPOLIKKARATHERUVU (GANDAPODIKKARA THERUVU), AMBOOR P.O, TAMIL NADU STATE.

¶14

ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 4 AND 5

¶15

4 ANASUYA, AGED 67 YEARS, W/o RAVINDRAN, LINGAPATTARMADAM STREET, CHAKKAMTHARA, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK - 678006

¶16

5 VANISREE, AGED 52 YEARS,

¶17

W/o NANDAGOPAL, MURASONS, 7-BC, VRM ROAD, THIRUVARUR, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU - 610001.

¶18

LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 1ST APPELLANT ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 4 AND 5, AND THE 2ND APPELLANT IS ALSO RECORDED AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED 1ST APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 22/02/2021 IN IA 1/2021.

¶19

BY ADVS. SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶20

RFA No.60 of 2019

¶21

¶22

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶23

REEJA SUDARSHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, D/o LATE P.J. RADHAKRISHNAN, 18/731, LAKSHMI NIVAS, YAKKARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶24

BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, BABY SAROJA, W/o LATE P.J. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 74, 18/731, LAKSHMI NIVAS, YAKKARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶25

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RFA No.60 of 2019

JUDGMENT

In a suit for fixation of boundary and recovery of

¶30

possession, three survey commissions were issued and they, in turn, submitted Exts.C1 report and C1(a) plan, Exts.C4 report and C4(a) plan and Ext.C6 report. Ext.C6 report is the last one. There is no much dispute with respect to the

¶31

respective title and its derivation. Both parties are claiming their respective title based on a mother document, Ext.A14 of the year 1921. The property allotted to the share of one Chokkalingam Pillai was subsequently partitioned under Ext.A1. The plaintiff claims title under Ext.A1 partition deed. The defendants are claiming their

¶32

title based on the share allotted to another sharer under

¶33

Ext.A14 partition. But, the properties were not located

¶34

based on the mother document of the year 1921 with

¶35

authorized survey plan. It is brought to the notice of this court that the Tahsildar submitted a strange report stating

¶36

that they are not in possession of the survey plan. The

¶37

RFA No.60 of 2019

¶38

¶39

lower court shall take every endeavour to obtain the survey

¶40

plan of the property so as to locate the property based on the partition deed of the year 1921, without which the dispute involved cannot be adjudicated. The decree and judgment of the trial court hence set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration. Both parties shall appear before the trial court on 29.10.2021.

¶41

Appeal is allowed in part accordingly. No costs.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Ravindran.R., v. Reeja Sudarshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindran.R., v. Reeja Sudarshan

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

Sasikumaran Vs Ushakumari and 3 Others

B.Pushpa Vs Thamarath Brijesh

Thomas Pullannikavil Vs Johny Pullannikavil

P.Devadas @ Unni, (Deceased) Vs Venu

Edavalath Rajan Vs Edavalath Janaki

Central Bank of India Vs Peter V.G.