Allowed

V.Raveendran Nair v. M.R.Jayasree

Kerala HC22 Mar 2024RFA/593/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third party to a specific performance suit appealed against the trial court decree, claiming he purchased six cents of the plaint schedule property from Sarojam by sale deed after she was impleaded but while he himself was not a party. The High Court set aside the decree and remanded the suit for fresh disposal, impleading the appellant and leaving contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Decree and judgment of trial court set aside; appellant impleaded as additional defendant; suit remanded for afresh disposal.

V.Raveendran Nair Vs M.R.Jayasree — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

RFA NO. 593 OF 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.11.2009 IN OS NO.161 OF 2004 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

APPELLANT/THIRD PARTY:

¶8

V.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O PADMANABHAN PILLAI, 'VIBHA', THITTAMEL, CHENGANNUR.

¶9

BY ADVS. G.S.REGHUNATH K.RAJESH KANNAN A.S.SHAMMY RAJ P.SHANES METHAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 6:

¶11

1 M.R.JAYASREE, AGED 44 YEARS, C/O.M.N.RAJAN, RESIDING IN ASWATHY, M.S.P NAGAR, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, M.N. RAJAN, AGED 71 YEARS, ASWATHY, M.S.P NAGAR, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695125.

¶12

2 M.N.RAJAN, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING IN ASWATHY, M.S.P NAGAR, THIRUMALA (P.O) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695125.

¶13

3 KRISHNA AMMA, SREE SIVAKRISHNA VILASOM, P.R.A. 124 POOJAPPURA, SASTHAMANGALAM (P.O) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695010.

¶14

RFA NO. 593 OF 2011 -2-

¶15

4 S.SATHEESH KUMAR, SREE SIVAKRISHNA VILASOM, P.R.A. 124 POOJAPPURA, SASTHAMANGALAM (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695010.

¶16

5 K.SINDHU KUMARI, SREE SIVAKRISHNA VILASOM, P.R.A. 124 POOJAPPURA, SASTHAMANGALAM (P.O) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695010

¶17

6 K.SAJEESH KUMAR, SREE SIVAKRISHNA VILASOM, P.R.A. 124 POOJAPPURA, SASTHAMANGALAM (P.O) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695010.

¶18

7 SAROJAM, SAROJA BHAVAN, PATTA, VILAVOORKAL VILLAGE, MALAYINKEEZHU P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, 695571, TRIVANDRUM.

¶19

8 S.KRISHNA PANICKER, SANKARA VILASOM, KAITHAKUZHY, VILAPPIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695621.

¶20

BY ADVS. T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN JANAKI KRISHNAN A E.K.MADHAVAN P. VIJAYAMMA V. KRISHNAMENON SURYA.J

¶21

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.F.A. No.593 of 2011

¶24

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2024

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

A decree for specific performance is under

¶27

challenge by a third party to the suit.

¶28

The plaint schedule property has an extent of 34

¶29

cents. The suit is based on an agreement dated 18.11.2002 entered into between defendants 1 and 2 who are respondents 3 and 4 in the appeal, with the plaintiff for sale of the property. The suit was filed on 17.03.2004.

¶30

The contention of the appellant is that, he had

¶31

purchased six cents from out of the plaint schedule property under Ext.B1 Sale Deed dated 21.05.2007 from one Sarojam. He is a bonafide purchaser for value. His

¶32

vendor was not a party to the suit at the time of execution of Ext.B1 Sale Deed. He is entitled to urge his contentions in the suit, it is claimed.

¶33

RFA No.593 of 2011

¶34

-: 2 :-

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶36

The agreement for sale which is the subject

¶37

matter of the suit is dated 18.11.2002. As noticed, the agreement was entered into between defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff. On 28.01.2004, the first defendant settled six cents of property in favour of his son Sajeesh Kumar under Ext.B3 document. It is thereafter that the suit was filed on 17.03.2004. Sajeesh Kumar was not made a party to the suit. On 22.03.2004, Sajeesh Kumar conveyed the property in favour of Sarojam under

¶38

Ext.B2 Sale Deed. Thereafter, on 25.01.2006 Sajeesh Kumar was impleaded as additional 4^th defendant in the

¶39

suit. Though there had been a conveyance as per Ext.B2 on 22.03.2004 in favour of Sarojam, she was not impleaded as a party along with Sajeesh Kumar. On 21.05.2007 Sarojam conveyed the property in favour of the appellant under Ext.B1 Sale Deed. Thereafter Sarojam was impleaded in the suit as additional 5^th defendant as

¶40

RFA No.593 of 2011

¶41

-: 3 :-

¶42

per order dated 12.02.2008 in I.A. 5025/2007. At that

¶43

stage, in spite of Ext.B1 Sale Deed, the appellant herein was not impleaded in the suit.

¶44

Though the conveyances Ext.B2 dated 22.03.2004 and Ext.B1 dated 21.05.2007 were made pending the suit,

¶45

the assignors under the respective documents were not parties to the suit as on the date of assignment. Therefore, the transactions are not hit by lis pendens , is the contention. Appellant also urges that, the alleged agreement for sale is not genuine.

¶46

On the facts as above, it is only deemed appropriate that appellant be given an opportunity to

¶47

raise his contentions and have the same adjudicated. To enable the same the decree and judgment of the trial court are to be interfered with and the suit remanded to the trial court. The contention of both sides are left open.

¶48

RFA No.593 of 2011

¶49

-: 4 :-

¶50

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment of the trial court are set aside. The appellant herein will stand impleaded as additional defendant in the suit. He shall be afforded opportunity to file written statement. The trial court shall dispose of the suit afresh. Parties shall be afforded opportunity to adduce evidence. Parties to appear before the trial court on 09.04.2024.

¶51

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

¶52

kns/-

¶53

//True Copy//

¶54

P.S. to Judge

V.Raveendran Nair v. M.R.Jayasree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Raveendran Nair v. M.R.Jayasree

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

Cheriya Othenenkandi Valiya v.Suseela Vs Cheriya Othenankandi Valiya Veettil Sankaran(Died)

Lawrence Vs Kunjamma Abraham

Parammel Jayaseelan, Vs K.K.Sukumaran

G.Gopakumar Vs M.J.Joseph

Williams Vs Annamma Poulose

Henry Vs K.K.Beatrice