Dismissed

Vancheeswara Iyar @ Raja v. P.v.Narayanaswamy

Kerala HC24 May 2022RP/174/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed two review petitions challenging interlocutory orders appointing a receiver and granting an injunction in a trust property dispute. The Court held that objections were not apparent on the face of the judgment and clarified that interlocutory findings will not influence the trial court's judgment on the merits of the main suit.

What did the court decide?

Review petitions RP Nos. 174 and 226 of 2022 dismissed.

Vancheeswara Iyar @ Raja Vs P.v.Narayanaswamy — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

RP NO. 174 OF 2022

¶6

¶7

COURT OF KERALA

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 VANCHEESWARA IYAR @ RAJA AGED 54 YEARS S/O. LATE SIVASUBRAHAMANYA IYAR, VENGOLA MADOM, GRAMAM TEMPLE, NELLIKUZHI, THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 692

¶10

2 ANANTHAVISWANATHAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O. LATE SIVASWAMY IYAR, MALICKAL MADOM, SAMOOHAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI, THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 692

¶11

3 GEETHAKUMARI AGED 45 YEARS W/O. VANCHEESWARA IYAR @ RAJA, VENGOLA MADOM, GRAMAM TEMPLE ROAD, NELLIKUHI, THRIKKARIYOOR , KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 692 BY ADVS. ALEXANDER JOSEPH AKHILASREE BHASKARAN M.V.SABU

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 P.V.NARAYANASWAMY AGED 85 YEARS S/O. LATE VENGIDASARA IYER, PUTHANMADOM HOUSE, SAMOOHAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THHRIKKARIYOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 692

¶14

2 M SHANGARANARAYANAN SASTHRI AGED 83 YEARS S/O. LATE SIVARAMAKRISHNAN IYAR, MALIKKAL MADAOM HOUSE, JAYASREE GARDEN, GRAMA ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 691

¶15

3 KANNAN S IYAR

¶16

RP Nos.174 & 226 of 2022

¶17

-2-

¶18

AGED 62 YEARS S/O. LATE SUBRAMANIYA IYAR,KARAMAL MADOM, THANKALAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 692 4 SUBRAMANIA RAJESH AGED 47 YEARS S/O. SUBRAMANIA IYER, 5/393, NJALAMADOM, GRAMA ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 692

¶19

5 THRIKKARIYOOR BRAHMANA SAMOOHAM TRUST REGISTERED AS DEED NO. 279/2019 OF SRO KOTHAMANGALAM, THRIKARIYOOR P.O, THRIKKARIYOOR KARA AND VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 696 692 PRESENTLY FUNCTION FROM 5/393, NJALAMADOM, GRAMAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYAT, THHRIKKARIYOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM 686 692 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND JOINT SECRETARY

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶21

28.3.2022, ALONG WITH RP.226/2022, THE COURT ON 24.05.2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

RP Nos.174 & 226 of 2022

¶23

-3-

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶27

TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1944 RP NO. 226 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶30

1 VANCHEESWARA IYAR AGED 54 YEARS S/O. LATE SIVASUBRAMANYA IYER, VENGOLA MADOM, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT. 2 ANANTHAVISWANATHAN, S/O. SIVASWAMY IYER, MALICKAL MADOM, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT. 3 GEETHAKUMARI, AGED 45 YEARS W/O. VANCHEESWARA IYAR, VENGOLA MADOM, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., THRIKKARIYOOR. BY ADVS. ALEXANDER JOSEPH AKHILASREE BHASKARAN

¶31

RESPONDENT/S:

¶32

1 P.V.NARAYANSWAMY AGED 85 YEARS S/O . LATE VENGIDASWARA LYAR, PUTHANMADOM HOUSE, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 692. 2 M. SHANGARANARAYANAN SASTHRI, AGED 83 YEARS S/O. LATE SIVARAMAKRISHNAN IYAR, MALIKKAL MADAMOM HOUSE,

¶33

RP Nos.174 & 226 of 2022

¶34

-4-

¶35

JAYSAREE GARDEN, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 692.

¶36

3 KANNAN S IYAR, S/O. LATE SUBRAMANIYA IYAR, KARAMAL MADOM, THANGALAM ROAD, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 692.

¶37

4 SUBRAMANIA RAJESH, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. SUBRAMANIA LYER, 5/393, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 692.

¶38

5 THRIKKARIYOOR BRAHMAN SAMOOHAM TRUST, 5/393, NJALUMADOM, THRIKKARIYOOR GRAMAM ROAD, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 692.

¶39

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.174/2022, THE COURT ON 24.05.2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

RP Nos.174 & 226 of 2022

¶41

-5-

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2022

¶44

By the judgment sought to be reviewed, the challenge against I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2020 in O.S.No.55 of 2020 on the files of the Munsiff's

¶45

Court, Kothamangalam was repelled. By the order in I.A.No.5 of 2020, the trial court appointed a

¶46

Receiver to manage the properties as well as the spiritual and temporal affairs of the Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooham and Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooha Madhom. As per the order in I.A.No.6 of 2020, the defendants were injuncted from interfering with the administration and

¶47

affairs of the Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooham and Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooha Madhom.

¶48

The review petitioners, who were the

¶49

petitioners in the original petition and the defendants in the suit, are seeking to get the

¶50

RP Nos.174 & 226 of 2022

¶51

-6-

¶52

judgment reviewed on the premise that the various contentions raised in the original petition and

¶53

during the course of argument, have not been properly dealt with. The other ground is that certain observations in the judgment will have an impact on the contest of the suit by the defendants.

¶54

review petitioners and Adv.M.P.Ramnath for the respondents.

¶55

petitioners assailed the judgment on various grounds. One of the grounds is that, even though the trial court had noticed the pendency of an impleading petition by a third party, the court proceeded to decide I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2020, without passing orders on the petition for impleadment. This material irregularity committed by the trial court was specifically raised during the course of argument, but is not dealt with in

¶56

RP Nos.174 & 226 of 2022

¶57

-7-

¶58

the judgment sought to be reviewed. Another

¶59

ground of challenge is against the finding in the judgment that the question whether the 5^th plaintiff Trust is duly constituted or not is of no avail, since a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 is instituted on behalf of an

¶60

unincorporated body. This finding is contended to be legally flawed. It is argued that, as many

¶61

of the findings in the orders challenged in the original petition will affect the defendants in the contest of their suit, this Court was

¶62

requested to clarify that aspect, but no mention in that regard is made in the judgment.

¶63

It is settled law that, for a review to

¶64

be entertained, the error has to be self evident and not one to be found out by a process of

¶65

reasoning [ Sasi (D) through LR's v. Aravindakshan

¶66

Nair and others [(2017) 4 SCC 692]] and that, the

¶67

elaborate grounds by itself would prima facie

¶68

RP Nos.174 & 226 of 2022

¶69

-8-

¶70

show that there is no error apparent on the face

¶71

of the judgment. Therefore, if aggrieved by the judgment, the petitioners should resort to the appellate remedy rather than causing this Court to rehear the original petitions.

¶72

Having held so, I find substance in the apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel for the review petitioners that the findings in the impugned orders may have an impact on the trial of the suit. It is therefore clarified that the findings in the impugned orders and the judgment sought to be reviewed are only for the purpose of deciding the interlocutory

¶73

applications for appointment of Receiver and for injunction and will curtail the liberty of the parties to produce evidence in support of their contentions in the suit. Needless to say that the trial court is bound to decide the suit based on the evidence tendered, uninfluenced by the findings in the impugned orders and the judgment.

¶74

RP Nos.174 & 226 of 2022

¶75

-9-

¶76

The review petitions are dismissed

accordingly.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/

Vancheeswara Iyar @ Raja v. P.v.Narayanaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vancheeswara Iyar @ Raja v. P.v.Narayanaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayamma Vs State of Kerala

Girija K Vs the Director

M Madhu Vs State of Kerala (Represented by Its Secretary)

Sathian K.C, Vs State of Kerala

Vancheeswara Iyar Vs P.v.Narayanswamy

P.v.Narayanaswamy Vs Vancheeswara Iyer @ Raja