Partly allowed

Thottathil Kalliani v. Thottathil Kunhikannan Nair

Kerala HC1 Feb 2022AS/492/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Additional plaintiffs, legal heirs of the original plaintiff, appealed against dismissal of a suit for recovery of possession and injunction. The High Court set aside the trial court decree and remanded the case for fresh adjudication due to missing boundary plans in the compromise deed and lack of proof of entitlement.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed in part. The decree and judgment of the trial court are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh adjudication.

Thottathil Kalliani Vs Thottathil Kunhikannan Nair — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943
AS NO. 492 OF 1998

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.1997 IN OS 4/1995 OF
SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR

¶6

APPELLANTS/SUPPLEMENTAL PLAINTIFFS 2 TO 9:

¶7

1THOTTATHIL KALLIANI
W/O.VALIYA VEETTIL KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
MALAPPATTOM AMSOM KOLANTHA DESOM,
THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2 THOTTATHIL JANAKI D/O.VALIYA VEETTIL KUNHIRAMAN NAYAR, -DO- -DO-

¶9

3 THOTTATHIL JANARDHANAN S/O.VALIAYA VEETTIL KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, -DO- -DO-

¶10

4 THOTTATHIL BHASKARAN, -DO- -DO-

¶11

5 THOTTATHIL RAGHAVAN, -DO- -DO-

¶12

6 THOTTATHIL REMADEVI, D/O.VALIYA VEETTIL KUNHIRAMAN NIAR, -DO- -DO-

¶13

7 THOTTATHIL RADHA -DO- -DO-

¶14

8 THOTTATHIL PAVITHRAN, S/O.VALIAYA VEETTIL KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, -DO- -DO-.

¶15

BY ADV SMT.VIDHYA. A.C

¶16

AS NO. 492 OF 1998

¶17

¶18

RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶19

1 THOTTATHIL KUNHIKANNAN NAIR(DIED) S/O.KRISHNA NAIR, MALAPPATTOM AMSOM KOLANTHA DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶20

2 PUTHUSSERI PUTHAN VEETTIL NARAYANI AMMA W/O.THOTTATHIL KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, MALAPPATTOM AMSOM. KOLANTHA DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶21

ADDL.3 PADMAVATHI D/O THOTTATHIL KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, MALAPPATTOM AMSOM. KOLANTHA DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶22

ADDL.4PRABHAVATH
D/O THOTTATHIL KUNHIKANNAN NAIR,
MALAPPATTOM AMSOM. KOLANTHA DESOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶23

ADDL.5PRAMAN
S/O THOTTATHIL KUNHIKANNAN NAIR,
MALAPPATTOM AMSOM. KOLANTHA DESOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶24

ADDL.6PRASEETHA
D/O THOTTATHIL KUNHIKANNAN NAIR,
MALAPPATTOM AMSOM. KOLANTHA DESOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶25

ADDL.7 SHANTHA

¶26

D/O THOTTATHIL KUNHIKANNAN NAIR,
MALAPPATTOM AMSOM. KOLANTHA DESOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶27

ADDL.8AJITHA
D/O THOTTATHIL KUNHIKANNAN NAIR,
MALAPPATTOM AMSOM. KOLANTHA DESOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶28

AS NO. 492 OF 1998

¶29

¶30

ADDL.9 SREEJITH

¶31

S/O THOTTATHIL KUNHIKANNAN NAIR,
MALAPPATTOM AMSOM. KOLANTHA DESOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶32

THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R1 ARE IMPLEADED
AS ADDITIONAL R3 TO R9 AND R2 IN THE APPEAL
IS RECORDED AS PONE OF THE LEGAL HEIRS OF
DECEASED R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2022 IN
IA 3556/2009

¶33

BY ADV.CIBI THOMAS

¶34

THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
01.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶35

AS NO. 492 OF 1998

¶36

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

A suit for injunction subsequently amended

¶39

as one for recovery of possession and
injunction was dismissed by the trial court,
against which the additional plaintiffs 2 to
9, who are the legal heirs of the original
plaintiff, came up in appeal.

¶40

2. The plaintiffs claim right, title and
interest over the property based on a
compromise, Ext.A1, in which the seventh item
is the plaint schedule, which was allotted to
the share of the original plaintiff comprised
in Re.Sy.No.34/1A having an extent of 1.4
Acres. The defendants claim title over the
property comprised in Re.Sy.No.33/5 based on
Ext.B6, assignment deed. Admittedly, Ext.B6
assignment deed was executed based on Ext.B3
purchase certificate, which according to the

¶41

¶42

AS NO. 492 OF 1998

¶43

plaintiffs was subsequently cancelled and set
aside. Hence, it is submitted that there is
no substance in the defence set up by the
defendants.

¶44

3. It is now settled that the plaintiffs
cannot embark upon even an admission made by
the defendants regarding their title over the
property. The admission will not confer any
title. In order to get any relief, the
plaintiffs have to establish their case by
provingtheirentitlement.InExt.A1

¶45

compromise, no plan was annexed showing the
locationofproperty,alignmentand
boundaries. The second defendant is not a
party to such compromise. In the suit, there
is no substantial prayer for fixation of
boundary, without which, the dispute involved
cannot be solved especially when there is no
plan annexed to the compromise. Hence, a

¶46

AS NO. 492 OF 1998

¶47

¶48

remand of the matter to the trial court cannot
be avoided. The decree and judgment of the
trial court are set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the trial court for fresh
adjudication, for which the parties shall
appear before the trial court on 16/02/2022.
The trial court shall expedite the disposal of
the suit within a time schedule of five
months from the date of appearance.

¶49

The appeal is allowed in part accordingly.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

P.SOMARAJAN

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

SPV

Thottathil Kalliani v. Thottathil Kunhikannan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thottathil Kalliani v. Thottathil Kunhikannan Nair

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

Abhilash Raj Vs Abdul Azeez

Jomon Vs M/S.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.

Babu v. Vs S.M.Salim

R.Mohankumar, Vs P.Sheela Remani

D.Prakash, Vs Geetha

V.S.Vijayaraghavan Vs National Highway Authority of India