Review petition against a first appeal judgment concerning the scope of clauses 12 and 13 of Ext.B4 compromise. Petitioners contended the plaintiff had relinquished only existing assets of her mother, not future properties. The court held review is not a rehearing in disguise and found no error apparent on the record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945
RP NO. 509 OF 2023 (F)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/03/2019 IN RFA NO.359 OF 2008 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
OS NO.84/2006 OF THE SUB COURT, VADAKARA
REVIEW PETITIONERS (APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 & 5/PLAINTIFF & LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES):
1 VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 80 YEARS, D/O.KUNHIKANNAN, RESIDING AT PARAMBATHPUTHENPURAYIL,SWASTHAM, NARIPATTAAMSOM, CHEEKKUNNUMMALDESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (DIED - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES IMPLEADED)
2 SREEDHARAN K, AGED 84 YEARS, HUSBAND OF P.P.VIJAYALAKSHMI, KOOVALATHIL HOUSE, CHEEKKUNNU WEST, CALICUT, KERALA - 673 507.(DIED - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES IMPLEADED)
3 K.S.SREEDITH, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. P.P.VIJAYALAKSHMI, KOOVALATHIL HOUSE, CHEEKKUNNU WEST, CALICUT, NOW RESIDING AT NO.89, SREEKRISHNA NIVAS, SULTANPET CROSS ROAD, CHITPET, BANGALORE- 560053.
4 SREEJAYA K., AGED 58 YEARS, D/O. P.P.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SREEPADMAM, POOKKODE, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR – 670692.
RP NO. 509 OF 2023 -2-
BY ADVS. DINESH R.SHENOY P.ROHIT PREMANANDAN SHENOY SILESH S. PRABHU HELAN PAULOSE MANOJ.R
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS & 4TH APPELLANT/DEFENDANTS
& LEGAL REPRESENTAIVE OF PLAINTIFF):
2 SYAMALA, [ADDRESS CORRECTED]*1 AGED 75 YEARS, D/O. KUNHIKANNAN, 'M.P.HOUSE', PUTHENPURAYIL, SWASTHAM, KALPATHUR AMSOM DESOM, KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673305
3 VALSALA, [ADDRESS CORRECTED]*1 AGED 72 YEARS, D/O. KUNHIKANNA, PUTHANPURAYIL, SWASTHAM, VADAKARA AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673305.
4 PADMAJAKSHI, [ADDRESS CORRECTED]*1 AGED 72 YEARS, D/O. KUNHIKANNAN, PUTHAN PURAYIL,KUMMANKUNIYIL, TEACHER, URALUNGAL AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN – 673305.
*****1 THE ADDRESSES OF RESPONDENTS 2, 3 AND 4 IN THE CAUSE TITLE ARE CORRECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 14/09/2023 IN IA 3/2023 AS FOLLOWS :-
RP NO. 509 OF 2023 -3-
R2 SYAMALA, AGED 75 YEARS, D/O PUTHEN PURAYIL KUNHIKANNAN, RESIDING AT M.P. HOUSE, KALPATHUR AMSOM DESOM, MEPPAYUR KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DT. PIN-673524.
R3 VALSALA P.P., AGED 72 YEARS, D/O PUTHENPURAYIL KUNHIKANNAN, RESIDING AT PUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, P.T. ROAD, VADAKARA AMSOM, DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DT. PIN-673101.
R4 PADMAJAKSHI, AGED 72 YEARS, D/O PUTHEN PURAYIL KUNHIKANNAN, TEACHER, RESIDING AT KUMMENAM KUNIYIL (HOUSE), URALUNGAL AMSOM, DESOM, MADAPALLY, VADAKARA TALUK, KIZHIKODE (DT) PIN-673102.
5 K.S.SREESHITH, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. P.P.VIJAYALAKSHMI, KOOVALATHIL HOUSE, CHEKKUNNU WEST, CALICUT, KERALA , PIN – 673507.
*****2 ADDL. 6TH RESPONDENT
ADDL. R6 MIDHUNA VIPIN D/O VALSALA P.P., LC VIHAR, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, P.O. ELATHUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673303.
*****2 [THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL SIXTH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 31/01/2024 IN IA 1/2024]
BY ADVS. B.KRISHNAN – R1 TO R4 R.PARTHASARATHY – R1 TO R4
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. No.509 of 2023 in R.F.A. No.359 of 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of March, 2024
O R D E R
The review petition is filed contending that, under
Ext.B4 compromise the plaintiff herein had relinquished only the rights over the assets of her mother Kalyani which belonged to her at the time of entering into the compromise and not over future properties. Therefore the judgment is liable to be reviewed. So also, there are other properties belonging to Kalyani which have not been included in the present suit. The finding herein cannot stand in the way of the plaintiffs raising claims over such properties, it is contended.
of Ext.B4 compromise was urged and dealt with in the judgment. Review is not to be a rehearing of the appeal in disguise. The review is attempted through a counsel
RP No.509 of 2023
-: 2 :-
who had not argued the appeal. The contentions urged in the appeal were heard and considered. As regards the argument that future claims would be affected, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to state anything regarding the same.
I do not find any grounds to entertain the review. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Review petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment in RFA No.359 of 2008 is reviewable on the ground that Ext.B4 compromise relinquished only existing assets, not future properties.
Vijayalakshmi
Sreedharan K
K.S.Sreedith
Sreejaya K.
M.P.Sethulakshmi
Syamala
Sathish Ninan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
