Dismissed

C.Siddharthan v. C.Raveendran

Kerala HC12 Jan 2022FAO (RO)/191/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a first appeal against a remand order. The lower appellate court had sent the matter back for a declaration of title due to the absence of a substantial prayer for title declaration in the suit, noting it was primarily for injunction but included recovery of possession.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with directions to the trial court to dispose of the suit within five months untrammelled by previous observations.

C.Siddharthan Vs C.Raveendran — Partition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12^th DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 22ND POUSHA, 1943

¶5

FAO (RO) NO. 191 OF 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2016 IN AS No.180/2012 OF II

¶7

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶8

OS 99/2009 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4 AND 8 / DEFENDANTS No.4 AND 8:

¶10

1 C.SIDDHARTHAN, S/o LATE CHEROOTTY, AGED 67 YEARS, SARANYA, MALAPARAMBA P.O, CHEVAYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶11

2 SASIDHARAN CHOLAPPURATH, S/o LATE CHEROOTTY, AGED 64 YEARS, 5/2278, BALAN K NAIR ROAD, ASOKAPURAM P.O, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶12

BY C.SIDDHARTHAN (PARTY)

¶13

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 7 AND 9 TO

¶14

26/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 7 AND 9 TO 26:

¶15

1 C.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 74 YEARS S/o LATE KORU, LAKSHMI NIVAS, PAROPPADI, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 017.

¶16

2 C. ASHOKAN, AGED 71 YEARS, S/o LATE KORU, LAKSHMI NIVAS, PAROPPADI, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 017.

¶17

3 C. GIRIJA, AGED 67 YEARS, D/o LATE KORU, LAKSHMI NIVAS, PAROPPADI, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 017.

¶18

4 C. SHYLAJA, AGED 63 YEARS, D/o LATE KORU, LAKSHMI NIVAS, PAROPPADI, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 017.

¶19

5 C. MOHANAN (DIED).

¶20

FAO (RO) No.191 of 2016

¶21

¶22

6 SUJATHA MOHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, W/o LATE MOHANAN CHOLAPPURATH, VILLA NO 4, CUBIX COCONUT GROVE, A.R. CAMP ROAD, MERIKKUNU P.O, CHEVAYUR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE 673 012.

¶23

7 VINAYAK MOHAN CHOLAPPURATH, AGED 34 YEARS S/o LATE MOHANAN CHOLAPPURATH, VILLA NO 4, CUBIX COCONUT GROVE, A.R. CAMP ROAD, MERIKKUNNU P.O, CHEVAYUR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE 673 012

¶24

8 DEVIKA MOHANAN, AGED 30 YEARS, D/o LATE MOHANAN CHOLAPPURATH, VILLA NO 4, CUBIX COCONUT GROVE, A.R. CAMP ROAD, MERIKKUNNU P.O, CHEVAYUR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE 673 012

¶25

9 C. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 77 YEARS, S/o LATE KORU, BANKOKH, C.H. HOUSE, GOF LINK ROAD, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 017.

¶26

10 DR. C.GOKULAN, AGED 61 YEARS S/o LATE KORU, AYUSH, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 017.

¶27

11 C. VANAJA, AGED 65 YEARS, D/o LATE KORU, THACHANKOTT VEED, MERIKUNNU, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 017.

¶28

12 K.P REETHA, AGED 59 YEARS, W/o T. JAYARAJ, D/o LATE PADMAVATHY AMMA, AMRUTH, YMCA CROSS ROAD, KASABA VILLAGE, KALATHNKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 004

¶29

13 K.P SAJITHA, AGED 57 YEARS, D/o LATE PADMAVATHY AMMA, TRIESTE, CENT VINCENT COLONY ROAD, ASOKAPURAM P.O, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 001.

¶30

14 USHA VARUN S. KUTTY, AGED 55 YEARS, D/o LATE PADMAVATHY AMMA, PADMA, U.P 201303, NEW DELHI 110 008.

¶31

15 NITESHNA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/o SASIDHARAN C, SAILENT, BOMBAY GRANTS, JALAHALLY WEST, PEENYA, BANGALORE 560 015.

¶32

FAO (RO) No.191 of 2016 3

¶33

16	C. SHABANU, AGED 41 YEARS,
	S/o SASIDHARAN.C, CHOLAPPURATH HOUSE, ASOKAPURAM P.O, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 001.
17	C. SIVANANDAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/o LATE CHEROOTY, 1/3045, EAST HILL, NEAR INDIAN EXPRESS, KOZHIKODE 673 005.
18	C SARASWATHI, AGED 74 YEARS, D/o LATE CHEROOTY, W/o DAMODARAN, WOOD HOUSE, B.G ROAD, CHAKKORATHUKULAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 011.
19	KIRAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/o SARASWATHI, WOOD HOUSE, B.G ROAD, CHAKKORATHUKULAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 011.
20	CHITHANANDAN, AGED 56 YEARS, WOOD HOUSE, B.G ROAD, CHAKKORATHUKULAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 011
21	POOKAD NARAYANADAS, AGED 84 YEARS, POOKAD VEEDU, GOVINDAPURAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 016.
22	SREEJA ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, D/o P. RADHA, 'AMMA', 2/974, P.M. KUTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 006.
23	ASHALAL, AGED 59 YEARS, S/o P. NARAYANA DAS, CRESCENT HOUSE, NEAR FRENCH BAKERY, FIRE STATION ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE 673 011.
24	CHITHARANJAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/o P. NARAYANA DAS, POOKAD HOUSE, GOVINDAPURAM P.O, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 016.
25	MANORANJAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/o LATE P. RADHA, POOKAD HOUSE, GOVINDAPURAM P.O, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 016.
26	NIRMALA, AGED 74 YEARS, W/O LATE DEVADAS, CHOLAPPURATH HOUSE, MALAPPARAMBA, PAROPPADI, CHEVAYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 017.

¶34

FAO (RO) No.191 of 2016

¶35

¶36

27 MITHRALAL, AGED 57 YEARS, H/o LATE NEENA DEVADAS, VIJAYALAL BUNGALOW, PANAKKAD, CHERTHALA.

¶37

28 DEEPUDAS, AGED 56 YEARS, S/o NIRMALA, CHOLAPPURATH HOUSE, CHEVAYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 017.

¶38

29 ANITHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/o NIRMALA, C/o PURUSHOTHAMAN, PERUMBULLY HOUSE, CHEKKORATHUKULAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 011.

¶39

30 LIPITHA, D/o NIRMALA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, CHOLAPPURATH HOUSE, CHEVAYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 017.

¶40

31 DEVAKUMAR, S/o NIRMALA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, CHOLAPPURATH HOUSE, CHEVAYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 017.

¶41

32 CHABALI SUDHEER, C/o SUDHEER SREEDHARAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RAMANILAYAM, PARAVANTHALA P.O, VATAKARA 673 104.

¶42

R1-R4, R6,R7 & R8 BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶43

SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN

¶44

SMT. C. SUJATHA MOHAN

¶45

R9 & R10 BY ADVS. SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SR.

¶46

SMT.VANDANA MENON

¶47

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 12.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶48

FAO (RO) No.191 of 2016

¶49

¶50

JUDGMENT

¶51

Heard the counsel for the appellants and respondents. A

¶52

suit for injunction simplicitor was dismissed by the trial court against which an appeal was preferred. In the first appellate court, the decree was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for the purpose of establishing the title over the property. It was submitted that the property originally belonged to four brothers, Cherootty, Kunjukutty, Koru and Velukutty and there was a family settlement. It was subjected to a partition in the

¶53

year 1944 by the four brothers in the year 1944. Accordingly, certain properties were allotted to the share of Koru. The property which was allotted to the share of

¶54

Koru was the subject matter of a subsequent suit for partition in the year 1989, wherein a compromise was entered into by the parties, by which the plaint schedule property was commonly allotted to the share of all the

¶55

parties. It is based on the compromise decree, the present

¶56

suit for injunction simplicitor was instituted on the

¶57

FAO (RO) No.191 of 2016

¶58

¶59

ground that they have acquired title over the property by virtue of the said compromise.

¶60

The defendants, in turn, contested the suit

¶61

claiming that they are the LRs and the persons litigating under one of the brothers Cherootty and the decree based on

¶62

the compromise arrived at in the earlier suit for partition

¶63

of the year 1989 is not binding on them. Inter alia it is contended that it is their property and inclusion of the said property as that of the property of Koru cannot be accepted. A rival contention of adverse possession was also

¶64

raised. The trial court dismissed the suit without going

¶65

into the title of the property and the issue of adverse possession, though the suit was subsequently amended by incorporating a prayer for recovery of possession. The

¶66

first appellate court remanded the matter to the trial

¶67

court for considering all these questions. It is curious

¶68

enough to notice that the suit, even after the amendment,

¶69

is one for injunction and for recovery of possession.

¶70

There is no substantial prayer with respect to the disputed

¶71

title. Necessarily, the plaint should be amended by

¶72

FAO (RO) No.191 of 2016

¶73

¶74

incorporating a substantial prayer for declaration of the title of the plaintiffs over the property. Hence the order of remand ordered by the first appellate court deserves no interference. But, there will be a direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made in the impugned judgment as well as in this judgment. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 07.02.2022. The trial court shall dispose of the matter within a period of five months from the date of appearance of the parties. Appeal will stand dismissed accordingly with the abovesaid observation. No costs.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

C.Siddharthan v. C.Raveendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Siddharthan v. C.Raveendran

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

Raman Vs Paru

Thomas Vs Peter

Mary Antony Vs Roy Joseph

C.D.Thankachan Vs C.D.Joseph

B. Prasannakumari Vs a. Thomas

Pouli Vs Union of India